[目的/意义] 为明确社交媒体中学术成果被关注、传播和利用等行为的内涵与意义，对已使用与可挖掘的altmetrics指标进行深度剖析。[方法/过程] 从事件本体视角出发，对社交媒体中与学术成果相关的行为进行抽象，从事件的主体、客体、产出、类型、动机、时间、地点和来源出发，构建社交媒体事件模型，并以Mendeley与Twitter为例进行社交媒体事件的深层次分析。[结果/结论] 目前altmetrics聚合器所提供的指标仅来自于社交媒体上的部分事件，通过对社交媒体事件及其各要素的剖析，发现未来应该纳入其他同样具有学术评价价值的指标，如文献被加入的Mendeley讨论组数量、推文点赞数等。指标利用中需要根据事件的各个要素去评定各指标在不同学术评价情境中的适用程度，同时也要考虑数据采集的方法、频率和限制条件等，以保证指标值的准确性和科学性。
[Purpose/significance] In order to clarify the connotation and significance of the attention, dissemination and utilization of academic achievements in social media, to make a deep analysis of the altmetrics indicators that have been used and can be mined.[Method/process] From the perspective of event ontology, the acts related to academic achievements in social media are abstracted. Starting from the subject, object, product, type, motivation, time, place and resource of the event, the event model of social media is constructed. And the deep analysis of social media events is carried out with Mendeley and Twitter as examples.[Result/conclusion] At present, altmetrics aggregators only provide indicators from some social media events. Through the analysis of social media events and their elements, it is found that some other indicators with academic evaluation value should be included in evaluation system in the future, such as Mendeley group_count, Twitter favorite_count and so on. When using these indicators, it is necessary to evaluate the applicability of indicators in different academic evaluation contexts according to the elements of events. Meanwhile, the methods, frequencies and limitations of data acquisition should be taken into account to ensure the accuracy and scientificity of the indicators.
[1] 邱均平, 文庭孝. 评价学:理论·方法·实践[M]. 北京:科学出版社, 2010:23.
[2] 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.
[3] ORTEGA J L. Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites:the case of CSIC's members[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2015, 9(1):39-49.
[4] ZAHEDI Z, COSTAS R, WOUTERS P. Assessing the impact of publications saved by mendeley users:is there any different pattern among users?[C]//International association of technological university libraries. West Lafayette:Purdue e-pubs, 2014.
[5] 王文娟, 马建霞, 陈春, 等. 引文文本分类与实现方法研究综述[J]. 图书情报工作, 2016, 60(6):118-127.
[6] PERITZ B C. A classification of citation roles for the social sciences and related fields[J]. Scientometrics, 1983, 5(5):303-312.
[7] TEUFEL S, SIDDHARTHAN A, TIDHAR D. Automatic classification of citation function[C]//Proceedings of the 2006 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing.Stroudsburg:Association for Computational Linguistics, 2006:103-110.
[8] BILDER G, FENNER M, LIN J, et al. ALM workshop 2014 report[EB/OL].[2019-01-19]. https://figshare.com/articles/ALM_Workshop_2014_Report/1287503.
[9] COSTAS R, DE RIJCKE S, MARRES N. Beyond the dependencies of altmetrics:conceptualizing ‘heterogeneous couplings’ between social media and science[EB/OL].[2019-01-19]. http://altmetrics.org/altmetrics17.
[10] SUGIMOTO C R. Theories of informetrics:a festschrift in honor of blaise cronin[M]//HAUSTEIN S, BOWMAN T D, COSTAS R. Interpreting" altmetrics":viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories. Berlin:De Gruyter, 2016:372-405.
[11] HAUSTEIN S. Grand challenges in altmetrics:heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 108(1):413-423.
[12] THELWALL M, TSOU A, WEINGART S, et al. Tweeting links to academic articles[J]. Cybermetrics:international journal of scientometrics, informetrics and bibliometrics, 2013, 17(1):1-8.
[13] BORNMANN L, HAUNSCHILD R. Which people use which scientific papers? An evaluation of data from F1000 and Mendeley[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2015, 9(3):477-487.
[14] 刘晓娟,余梦霞.Altmetrics覆盖率影响因素及应用分析[J].图书情报工作,2018,62(16):92-101.
[15] 刘丽敏,王晴.Altmetrics应用于影响力评价可行吗?——国外学者的实证研究及相关论争[J].情报理论与实践,2016,39(6):7-14.
[16] The event ontology[EB/OL].[2019-01-19].http://motools.sourceforge.net/event/event.html.
[17] MOHAMMADI E, THELWALL M, KOUSHA K. Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(5):1198-1209.
[18] JIANG J, NI C, HE D, et al. Mendeley group as a new source of interdisciplinarity study:how do disciplines interact on Mendeley?[C]//Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries. New York:ACM, 2013:135-138.
[19] National information standards organization. NISO RP-25-2016 outputs of the NISO alternative assessment metrics project.[EB/OL].[2019-01-19]. https://www.niso.org/publications/rp-25-2016-altmetrics.
[20] SHEMA H, BAR-ILAN J, THELWALL M. How is research blogged? A content analysis approach[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(6):1136-1149.
[21] BOYD D, GOLDER S, LOTAN G. Tweet, tweet, retweet:conversational aspects of retweeting on twitter[C]//201043rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Piscataway:IEEE, 2010:1-10.
[22] SCHNITZLER K, DAVIES N, ROSS F, et al. Using Twitter? to drive research impact:a discussion of strategies, opportunities and challenges[J]. International journal of nursing studies, 2016, 59(7):15-26.
[23] POWER A. Twitter's potential to enhance professional networking.[J]. British journal of midwifery, 2015, 23(1):65-67.
[24] MOLLETT A, MORAN D, DUNLEAVY P. Using Twitter in university research, teaching and impact activities[EB/OL].[2019-01-19]. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/38489.
