[目的/意义]探讨影响altmetrics覆盖率的因素，为altmetrics在学术评价中的合理使用奠定基础。[方法/过程]基于Web of Science、Altmetric.com以及Mendeley，以5个学科1996-2015年间发表的所有期刊论文为分析对象，探讨学科领域、出版年份、来源期刊、国别、语种5个因素对altmetrics覆盖率的影响。[结果/结论]不同altmetrics指标的覆盖率不同，Mendeley覆盖率最高，Twitter其次，而大多数指标覆盖率很低；在将altmetrics应用于期刊评价时，有必要合理鉴别和排除期刊推广策略导致的高覆盖率现象；以上5个因素均会导致期刊论文的altmetrics覆盖率差异，因此在应用altmetrics时，需要考虑到被评价对象的属性特征，必要时考虑altmetrics在这些影响因素上的标准化。
[Purpose/significance] The factors that affect the coverage of altmetrics are discussed, which lays the foundation for the usage of altmetrics in academic evaluation.[Method/process] Based on Web of Science, Altmetric.com and Mendeley, the paper selected five disciplines' article papers published in 1996-2015, and discussed their differences of altmetrics coverage in terms of discipline, publishing year, journal, country and language.[Result/conclusion] Firstly, different altmetrics indicators have different coverage, and Mendeley is the highest. However, most indicators are very low. Secondly, it is necessary to distinguish and exclude the phenomenon of high coverage caused by the promotion strategy of journals when evaluating with altmetrics. Lastly, the coverage of altmetrics for different disciplines, year of publication, journals, countries and languages is different; therefore, it is necessary to consider the differences among different papers in the above factors when evaluating with altmetrics. When necessary, standardization should be taken into account.
[1] PRIEM J, TARABORELLI D, GROTH P, et al. Altmetrics:a manifesto[EB/OL].[2018-05-15]. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/.
[2] WOUTERS P, COSTAS R. Users, narcissism and control:tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century[EB/OL].[2018-05-15]. http://www.surffoundation.nl/nl/publicaties/Documents/Users%20narcissism%20and%20control.pdf.
[3] BORNMANN L. Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? an overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2014, 8(4):895-903.
[4] HAMMARFELT B. Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(2):1419-1430.
[5] HAUSTEIN S, PETERS I, BAR-ILAN J, et al. Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community[J]. Scientometrics, 2014,101(2):1145-1163.
[6] BARTHEL S, TONNIES S, KOHNCKE B, et al. What does twitter measure?:influence of diverse user groups in altmetrics[C]//Proceedings of the 15th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries. New York:ACM, 2015:119-128.
[7] ZAHEDI Z, COSTAS R, WOUTERS P. How well developed are altmetrics? a cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of "alternative metrics" in scientific publications[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(2):1491-1513.
[8] ERDT M, AW A S, AUNG H H, et al. Investigating singapore's altmetric landscape[J]. Proceedings of the association for information science and technology, 2016, 53(1):1-9.
[9] COSTAS R, ZAHEDI Z, WOUTERS P. Do "altmetrics" correlate with citations? extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 66(10):2003-2019.
[10] THELWALL M, KOUSHA K. ResearchGate articles:age, discipline, audience size, and impact[M]. Hoboken:John Wiley & Sons, 2017.
[11] 郭飞,游滨,薛婧媛.Altmetrics热点论文传播特性及影响力分析[J].图书情报工作,2016,60(15):86-93.
[12] MOED H F. Altmetrics as traces of the computerization of the research process[EB/OL].[2018-05-15]. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.05131.pdf.
[13] ALPERIN J P. Geographic variation in social media metrics:an analysis of Latin American journal articles[J]. Aslib journal of information management, 2015, 67(3):289-304.
[14] HAUSTEIN S, COSTAS R, LARIVIERE V. Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers:the effect of document properties and collaboration patterns[J]. PloS ONE, 2015, 10(3):e0120495.
[15] LI X, THELWALL M, GIUSTINI D. Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement[J]. Scientometrics, 2012, 91(2):461-471.
[16] MAS-BLEDA A, THELWALL M, KOUSHA K, et al. Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social Web?[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(1):337-356.
[17] ORTEGA J L. Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites[J]. Online information review, 2015, 39(4):520-536.
[18] HOLMBERG K, THELWALL M. Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication[M]. New York:Springer-Verlag, 2014.
[19] PRIEM J, PIWOWAR H A, HEMMIMGER B M. Altmetrics in the wild:using social media to explore scholarly impact[EB/OL].[2018-05-15]. https://arxiv.org/html/1203.4745.
[20] THELWALL M, SUD P. Mendeley readership counts:an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences[M]. Hoboken:John Wiley & Sons, 2016.
[21] HAUSTEIN S, PETERS I, SUGIMOTO C R, et al. Tweeting biomedicine:an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 65(4):656-669.
[22] HAUNSCHILD R, BORNMANN L. How many scientific papers are mentioned in policy-related documents? an empirical investigation using Web of Science and altmetric data[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 110(3):1209-1216.
[23] ARAUJO R F, MURAKAMI T R M, LARA J L D, et al. Does the Global South have altmetrics? analyzing a Brazilian LIS journal[C]//Proceedings of ISSI 2015. Istanbul:15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference, 2015:111-112.
[24] TAMMARO A M. Altmetrics in the humanities:Perceptions of Italian scholars[EB/OL].[2018-05-15]. http://ozk.unizd.hr/proceedings/index.php/lida/article/view/167/167.
[25] MAS-BLEDA A, THELWALL M. Can alternative indicators overcome language biases in citation counts? a comparison of Spanish and UK research[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 109(3):2007-2030.
[26] BORNMANN L, HAUNSCHILD R. Normalization of Mendeley reader impact on the reader-and paper-side:a comparison of the mean discipline normalized reader score (MDNRS) with the mean normalized reader score (MNRS) and bare reader counts[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2016, 10(3):776-788.
[27] HAUNSCHILD R, BORNMANN L. Normalization of Mendeley reader counts for impact assessment[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2016, 10(1):62-73.
[28] BORNMANN L, HAUNSCHILD R. How to normalize Twitter counts? a first attempt based on journals in the Twitter Index[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 107(3):1405-1422.
[29] 刘春丽. Altmetrics指标在科研评价与管理方面的应用——争议、评论和评估[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2016, 37(6):13-22.
