Existing Problems and Countermeasures of Domestic Social Media for Altmetrics Evaluation of Academic Achievements

Lu Xiaorong; Zhang Shuliang

doi:10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2019.21.009

Library and Information Service >

2019 , Vol. 63 >Issue 21: 87 - 96

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2019.21.009

Existing Problems and Countermeasures of Domestic Social Media for Altmetrics Evaluation of Academic Achievements

Lu Xiaorong ,
Zhang Shuliang

Expand

1. Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000;
2. Lanzhou Library of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000;
3. Department of Library, Information and Archives Management, School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049

Received date: 2019-01-17

Revised date: 2019-04-14

Online published: 2019-11-05

Fold

Abstract

[Purpose/significance] The paper aims to analyze the problems and countermeasures of domestic social media for Altmetrics evaluation of academic achievements, so as to promote the Altmetrics evaluation of domestic academic results.[Method/process] Literature review was adopted to sort out the current research status of domestic and foreign social media for Altmetrics evaluation of academic achievements.[Result/conclusion] Domestic social media for Altmetrics evaluation of academic results has six shortcomings:lack of data foundation, lack of exploration of data sources and indicators, lack of empirical study of correlation between indicators and the influencing factors of indicators, lack of research on the deep meaning of Altmetrics indicators, lack of development of Altmetrics analysis tools, and lack of theoretical support.

Key words： Altmetrics domestic social media; Chinese academic achievements; impact evaluation; Altmetrics data source

Cite this article

Lu Xiaorong , Zhang Shuliang . Existing Problems and Countermeasures of Domestic Social Media for Altmetrics Evaluation of Academic Achievements[J]. Library and Information Service, 2019 , 63(21) : 87 -96 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2019.21.009

References

[1] VAN NOORDEN R. Online collaboration:scientists and the social network[J].Nature,2014,512(7513):126-129.
[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] LI X M, THELWALL M, GIUSTINI D. Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement[J].Scientometrics,2012,91(2):461-471.
[4] PRIEM J, PIWOWAR H A, HEMMINGER B M. Altmetrics in the wild:using social media to explore scholarly impact[EB/OL].[2018-10-01].http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4745.
[5] 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,2015,66(10):2003-2019.
[6] HAUSTEIN S, LARIVIERE V, THELWALL M, et al. Tweets vs. Mendeley readers:how do these two social media metrics differ?[J].IT-information technology,2014,56(5):207-215.
[7] COSTAS R, ZAHEDI Z, WOUTERS P. The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media:large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations[J].Aslib journal of information management,2015,67(3):260-288.
[8] 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(5):e0120495.
[9] ALHOORI H, FURUTA R. Do altmetrics follow the crowd or does the crowd follow altmetrics?[C]//Proceedings of the 14th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries.Piscataway:IEEE Press,2014:375-378.
[10] HAMMARFELT B. Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities[J].Scientometrics,2014,101(2):1419-1430.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[13] 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.
[14] ORTEGA J L. The life cycle of altmetric impact:a longitudinal study of six metrics from PlumX[J].Journal of informetrics,2018,12(3):579-589.
[15] 刘晓娟,宋婉姿.基于PLOS ALM的altmetrics指标可用性分析[J].图书情报工作,2016,60(4):93-101.
[16] 赵蓉英,汪少震,陈志毅.补充计量学及其分析工具之探究[J].情报理论与实践,2015,38(6):29-34.
[17] SUGIMOTO C R, WORK S, LARIVIERE V, et al. Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics:a review of the literature[J].Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2017,68(9):2037-2062.
[18] 王睿,胡文静,郭玮.常用Altmetrics工具比较[J].现代图书情报技术,2014(12):18-26.
[19] 杨柳,陈铭.常用替代计量学工具之比较研究[J].情报理论与实践,2015,38(9):114-119,144.
[20] ROWLANDS I, NICHOLAS D, RUSSELL B, et al.Social media use in the research workflow[J]. Learned publishing,2011,24(3):183-195.
[21] THELWALL M. Early Mendeley readers correlate with later citation counts[J].Scientometrics,2018,115(3):1231-1240.
[22] MAFLAHI N, THELWALL M. How quickly do publications get read? The evolution of Mendeley reader counts for new articles[J].Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2018,69(1):158-167.
[23] THELWALL M, NEVILL T. Could scientists use Altmetric.com scores to predict longer term citation counts?[J].Journal of informetrics,2018,12(1):237-248.
[24] BORNMANN L. Alternative metrics in scientometrics:a meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics[J].Scientometrics,2015,103(3):1123-1144.
[25] HAUSTEIN S, BOWMAN T D, HOLMBERG K, et al. Tweets as impact indicators:examining the implications of automated "bot" accounts on Twitter[J].Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2016,67(1):232-238.
[26] 刘春丽.基于PLOS API的论文影响力选择性计量指标研究[J].图书情报工作,2013,57(7):89-95.
[27] WOUTERS P, THELWALL M, KOUSHA K, et al. The metric tide:correlation analysis of REF2014 scores and metrics.supplementary report ii to the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management[EB/OL].[2019-04-10].https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279413813.
[28] RAVENSCROFT J, LIAKATA M, CLARE A, et al. Measuring scientific impact beyond academia:an assessment of existing impact metrics and proposed improvements[J].PLoS ONE,2017,12(3):0173152.
[29] BORNMANN L, HAUNSCHILD R. Do altmetrics correlate with the quality of papers? A large-scale empirical study based on F1000Prime data[J].PLOS ONE,2018,13(5):0197133.
[30] NUZZOLESE A G, CIANCARINI P, GANGEMI A.Do altmetrics work for assessing research quality?[J].Scientometrics,2019,118(2):539-562.
[31] BAR-ILAN J. JASIST 2001-2010[J].Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2012,38(6):24-28.
[32] MOHAMMADI E, THELWALL M. Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities:research evaluation and knowledge flows[J].Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2014,65(8):1627-1638.
[33] THELWALL M, WILSON P. Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles:an analysis of 45 fields[J].Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2016,67(8):1962-1972.
[34] ZAHEDI Z, COSTAS R.General discussion of data quality challenges in social media metrics:extensive comparison of four major altmetric data aggregators[J].PLoS ONE,2018,13(5):e0197326.
[35] KNIGHT S R. Social media and online attention as an early measure of the impact of research in solid organ transplantation[J].Transplantation,2014,98(5):490-496.
[36] THELWALL M. Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries[J].Journal of informetrics,2018,12(4):1031-1041.
[37] EYSENBACH G. 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):e123.
[38] ZHANG L W, WANG J. Why highly cited articles are not highly tweeted? A biology case[J].Scientometrics,2018,117(1):495-509.
[39] PACHECO A, SOUSA A, YANAI A, et al. Metrics and Altmetrics:an exploratory study of a possible correlation between the most cited papers in open and restricted access in 2016-2018[C]//TEEM'18. New York:Association for Computing Machinery,2018:258-264.
[40] SERGHIOU S,IOANNIDIS J P A. Altmetric scores, citations, and publication of studies posted as preprints[J].Jama-journal of the American Medical Association,2018,319(4):402-403.
[41] 由庆斌,韦博,汤珊红.基于补充计量学的论文影响力评价模型构建[J].图书情报工作,2014,58(22):5-11.
[42] 程菲.科技论文影响力综合评价研究[D].太原:中北大学,2016.
[43] 程爱娟. 基于Altmetrics的单篇论文影响力评价研究[D].湘潭:湘潭大学,2017.
[44] 王贤文,方志超,王虹茵.连续、动态和复合的单篇论文评价体系构建研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2015,36(8):37-48.
[45] THELWALL M, TSOU A, WEINGART S, et al. Tweeting links to academic articles[J].Cybermetrics,2013,17(1):1-8.
[46] MOHAMMADI E, THELWALL M, KWASNY M, et al. Academic information on twitter:a user survey[J].PLOS ONE,2018,13(5):e0197265.
[47] 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.
[48] KE Q,AHN Y Y, SUGIMOTO C R. A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter[J].PLOS ONE,2017,12(4):e0175368.
[49] CHEN P Y,HAYES E,LARIVIERE V, et al. Social reference managers and their users:a survey of demographics and ideologies[J].PLoS ONE,2018,13(7):e0198033.
[50] HOLMBERG K, VAINIO J. Why do some research articles receive more online attention and higher altmetrics? Reasons for online success according to the authors[J].Scientometrics,2018,116(1):435-447.
[51] 吴胜男,赵蓉英.Altmetrics应用工具的发展现状及趋势之分析[J].图书情报知识,2016(1):84-93.
[52] ZOHREH Z, MARTIN F, RODRIGO C. How consistent are altmetrics providers? Study of 1000 PLoS ONE publications using the PLoS ALM, Mendeley and Altmetric.com APIs[EB/OL].[2018-10-21].https://figshare.com/articles/How_consistent_are_altmetrics_providers_Study_of_1000_PLOS_ONE_publications_using_the_PLOS_ALM_Mendeley_and_Altmetric_com_APIs/1041821.
[53] ORTEGA J L. Reliability and accuracy of altmetric providers:a comparison among Altmetric, PlumX and Crossref Event Data[J].Scientometrics,2018,116(3):2123-2138.
[54] LIU J, ADIE E. Five challenges in altmetrics:a toolmaker's perspective[J].Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2013,39(4):22-26.
[55] 余厚强,HEMMINGER B M,肖婷婷,等.新浪微博替代计量指标特征分析[J].中国图书馆学报,2016,42(4):20-36.
[56] 王萝娜,李端明,李星.在线科学交流中学术论文影响力动态评价研究[J].图书情报工作,2018,62(4):107-112.
[57] 张玉,潘云涛,袁军鹏,等.论多维视角下中文科技图书学术影响力评价体系的构建[J].图书情报工作,2015,59(7):69-76.
[58] 林晓华.基于Altmetrics工具的电子图书学术影响力评价体系构建——以Springer电子图书为例[J].出版发行研究,2016(4):85-89.
[59] 郭颖,肖仙桃.国内学者影响力评价Altmetrics指标研究[EB/OL].[2019-01-09].http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.1762.g3.20181205.1306.008.html.
[60] 邱均平,余厚强.基于影响力产生模型的替代计量指标分层研究[J].情报杂志,2015,34(5):53-58.
[61] 余厚强,邱均平.替代计量指标分层与聚合的理论研究[J].图书馆杂志,2014,33(10):13-19.
[62] 李明,陈铭.学术图书Altmetrics评价指标分层框架探析[J].现代情报,2018,38(5):106-109.
[63] 李勇,邵钟钰,赵星.Altmetrics背景下的期刊多维度测评指标研究[J].情报学报,2017,36(2):190-196.
[64] 邱均平,张心源,董克.Altmetrics指标在机构知识库中的应用研究[J].图书情报工作,2015,59(2):100-105.
[65] 刘丹,刘烜贞.Altmetrics视角下数字期刊利用统计指标框架构建[J].现代情报,2018,38(3):138-144.
[66] 何峻,蔡蓉华.中文图书评价体系研究[J].大学图书馆学报,2016,34(3):51-58,15.
[67] 刘烜贞,陈静.基于新浪微博的学术论文社会影响分析[J].农业图书情报学刊,2017,29(9):63-69.
[68] 毕德强,黄世晴,董颖,等.科研用户学术社交网络认知与使用动机比较研究[J].图书情报工作,2019,63(6):1-5.
[69] 张耀坤,胡方丹,刘继云.科研人员在线社交网络使用行为研究综述[J].图书情报工作,2016,60(3):138-147.
[70] 刘虹,孙建军,郑彦宁,等.网站评价指标体系设计原则评述[J].情报科学,2013,31(3):156-160.
[71] SUD P,THELWALL M. Evaluating Altmetrics[J]. Scientometrics,2014,98(2):1131-1143.
[72] 赖茂生,赵康.我国科研人员对在线学术交流的态度和需求调查[J].科技传播,2014,6(2):269-272.

Options

Outlines

模态框（Modal）标题

Abstract

Cite this article

References