Library and Information Service >
Study on Correlation Between Altmetrics Indicators and Traditional Scientometric Indicators Based on Mendeley and WoS
Received date: 2014-12-15
Revised date: 2015-01-10
Online published: 2015-02-05
[Purpose/significance] This paper will explore the effectiveness of altmetrics indicators in the Web 2.0 environment. [Method/process] It achieves a set of overlapping documents in the data mining domain from Mendeley and Web of Science, verifies the correlation between citation number and reader counts as well as citation number and tags frequency, and selects 100 articles with great difference and 100 articles with little difference to analyze specifically. [Result/conclusion] It finds that the citation number in traditional indicator has weak correlation with reader counts and tags frequency in Mendeley. Thus confirms that reader counts and tags frequency as the representatives of altmetrics indicators can evaluate the literature influence in some extent, and document types, publication date and H index of authors can affect the usage rate and influence of literature. In the future, the literature influence evaluation should combine the traditional scientometric and newly altmetrics
Liu Xiaojuan , Zhou Jianhua , You Bin . Study on Correlation Between Altmetrics Indicators and Traditional Scientometric Indicators Based on Mendeley and WoS[J]. Library and Information Service, 2015 , 59(3) : 112 -118 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2015.03.016
[1] Jennifer L, Martin F. Altmetrics in evolution: Defining & redefining the ontology of article-level metrics [J]. Information Standards Quarterly, 2013, 25(2): 20-26.
[2] MacRoberts M, MacRoberts R. Problems of citation analysis: A critical review[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1989, 40(5):342-349.
[3] Bornmann L. Measuring the societal impact of research: Research is less and less assessed on scientific impact alone—We should aim to quantify the increasingly important contributions of science to society[J]. EMBO Reports, 2012, 13(8): 673-675.
[4] Thelwall, M. Journal impact evaluation: A webometric perspective[J]. Scientometrics, 2012, 92(2): 429-441.
[5] Schloegl C, Stock G. Impact and relevance of LIS journals: A scientometric analysis of international and German-language LIS journals - Citation analysis versus reader survey [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2004, 55(13):1155-1168.
[6] Willinsky J. The nine flavours of open access scholarly publishing[J].Postgraduate Journal of Medicine, 2003, 49(3): 263-267.
[7] Martin R. The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research[J]. Scientometrics, 1996, 36(3):343-362.
[8] Priem J, Taraborelli D, Groth P, et al. Altmetrics: A manifesto[EB/OL]. [2014-11-25].http: //altmetrics.org/manifesto/.
[9] Rousseau R, Ye Ying. A multi-metric approach for research evaluations[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2013, 58(26):3288-3290.
[10] Piwowar H. Altmetrics: Value all research products[J]. Nature, 2013,493(7431):159-159.
[11] Priem J, Piwowar H, Hemminger B. Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact[EB/OL]. [2014-12-10].http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4745.
[12] Haustein S, Golov E, Luckanus K, et al. Journal evaluation and science 2.0: Using social bookmarks to analyze reader perception[C]//Book of Abstracts of the Eleventh International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators.Leiden: Leiden University, 2010: 117-119.
[13] Kortelainen T, Katvala M. "Everything is plentiful—Except attention". Attention data of scientific journals on social Web tools[J].Informetrics, 2012, 6 (4):661-668.
[14] Liu J, Adie E. New perspectives on article-level metrics: Developing ways to assess research uptake and impact online[J]. Insights, 2013, 27(2):153-158.
[15] The Altmetric Explorer[EB/OL]. [2014-11-25].http://www.altmetric.com/aboutexplorer.php.
[16] Impactstory[EB/OL]. [2014-11-25].https://impactstory.org/.
[17] Plum Analytics[EB/OL]. [2014-11-25]. http://www.plumanalytics.com/.
[18] Eysenbach G. Correction: Can Tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact[J]. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2011, 13(4):123-124.
[19] Shema H, Bar-Ilan J, Thelwall M. Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 65(5):1018-1027. doi: 10.1002/asi.23037.
[20] Shuai Xin, Pepe A, Bollen J. How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: Article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citations[J]. PLoS ONE, 2012,7(11):12-15.
[21] Li Xuemei,Thelwall M, Giustini D. Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement[J]. Scientometrics, 2012, 91(2): 461-471.
[22] Li Xuemei, Thelwall M.F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators[C]//Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators.Montréal: Science-Metrix and OST, 2012: 541-551.
[23] 刘春丽, 何钦成. 不同类型选择性计量指标评价论文相关性研究——基于Mendeley、F1000和Google Scholar三种学术社交网络工具[J]. 情报学报, 2013, 32(2):206-212.
[24] 宋丽萍,王建芳,王树义.科学评价视角下 F1000、Mendeley与传统文献计量指标的比较[J].中国图书馆学报,2014,40(4):48-54.
[25] 宋丽萍,王建芳.基于F1000与WoS的同行评议与文献计量相关性研究[J].中国图书馆学报,2012,38(2):62-69.
[26] Ehsan M, Mike T, Stefanie H, et al. Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of mendeley user categories[EB/OL].[2015-01-10].https://www.academia.edu/6298635/Who_Reads_Research_Articles_An_Altmetrics_Analysis_of_Mendeley_User_Categories.
[27] 刘春丽. Web 2.0环境下的科学计量学:选择性计量学[J]. 图书情报工作,2012,56(14):52-56.
[28] Patterson M. Article-level metrics at PLoS - Addition of usage data [EB/OL].[2014-11-01].http://blogs.plos.org/plos/2009/09/article-level-metrics-at-plos-addition-of-usage-data/.
[29] Konkiel S. Altmetrics: A 21st century solution to determining research quality[J]. Online Searcher, 2013, 37(4): 11-15.
[30] 张红坡. SPSS统计分析实用宝典[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2012: 163.
[31] Dharminder K. Rise of data mining: Current and future application areas[J]. International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 2011, 8(5):256-260.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
