Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do traditional scientometric indicators predict social media activity on scientific knowledge? An analysis of the ecological literature

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Traditional citation-based indicators and activities on Online Social Media Platforms (OnSMP; e.g. Twitter) have been used to assess the impact of scientific research. However, the association between traditional indicators (i.e., number of citations and journal impact factor) and the new OnSMP metrics still deserve further investigations. Here, we used multivariate models to evaluate the relative influence of collaboration, time since publication and traditional indicators on the interest of 2863 papers published in five ecological journals from 2013 to 2015 as given by nine OnSMP. We found that most activities were concentrated on Twitter and Mendeley and that activities in these two OnSMP are highly correlated. Our results indicate that traditional indicators explained most of the variation in OnSMP activity. Considering that OnSMP activities are high as soon as the articles are made available online, contrasting with the slow pace in which the citations are accumulated, our results support the use of activities on OnSMP as an early signal of research impact of ecological articles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aduku, K. J., Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2017). Do Mendeley reader counts reflect the scholarly impact of conference papers? An investigation of computer science and engineering. Scientometrics, 112(1), 573–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appel, H. M., & Cocroft, R. B. (2014). Plants respond to leaf vibrations caused by insect herbivore chewing. Oecologia, 175(4), 1257–1266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (2005). Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 217–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2014). Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 935–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2015). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics, 103(3), 1123–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2014). How should the societal impact of research be generated and measured? A proposal for a simple and practicable approach to allow interdisciplinary comparisons. Scientometrics, 98(1), 211–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, D., Golder, S., & Lotan, G. (2010). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences.

  • Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoric approach. New York: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Carmel, Y., Kent, R., Bar-Massada, A., Blank, L., Liberzon, J., Nezer, O., et al. (2013). Trends in ecological research during the last three decades—A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 8(4), e59813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charlton, B. G., & Andras, P. (2007). Evaluating universities using simple scientometric research-output metrics: Total citation counts per university for a retrospective seven-year rolling sample. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 555–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015). Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2003–2019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crean, A. J., Kopps, A. M., & Bonduriansky, R. (2014). Revisiting telegony: Offspring inherit an acquired characteristic of their mother’s previous mate. Ecology Letters, 17(12), 1545–1552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darling, E. S., Shiffman, D., Côté, I. M., & Drew, J. A. (2013). The role of twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication. PeerJ PrePrints, 1, e16v11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., Fioravanti, M. C., Bini, L. M., & Rangel, T. R. (2016). Drivers of academic performance in a Brazilian university under a government-restructuring program. Journal of Informetrics, 10, 151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faraway. (2016). Faraway: Functions and Datasets for Books by Julian Faraway. R package version 1.0.7, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=faraway. Accessed September 19, 2017.

  • Gagliano, M., Renton, M., Depczynski, M., & Mancuso, S. (2014). Experience teaches plants to learn faster and forget slower in environments where it matters. Oecologia, 175(1), 63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295(1), 90–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, S. U., Imran, M., Gillani, U., Aljohani, N. R., Bowman, T. D., & Didegah, F. (2017). Measuring social media activity of scientific literature: An exhaustive comparison of scopus and novel altmetrics big data. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2512-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haustein, S. (2016). Grand challenges in altmetrics: Heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies. Scientometrics, 108(1), 413–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS, 102(46), 16569–16572.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Inger, R., Gregory, R., Duffy, J. P., Stott, I., Voříšek, P., & Gaston, K. J. (2015). Common European birds are declining rapidly while less abundant species’ numbers are rising. Ecology Letters, 18(1), 28–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karthik, R. (2014). rAltmetric: Retrieves Altmetrics Data For Any Published Paper From Altmetric.com. R package version 0.6, https://github.com/ropensci/rAltmetric. Accessed September 19, 2017.

  • King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430(6997), 311–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koteyko, N., Nerlich, B., & Hellsten, I. (2015). Climate change communication and the internet: Challenges and opportunities for research. Environmental Communication, 9(2), 149–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krauss, J. (2007). Journal self-citation rates in ecological sciences. Scientometrics, 73(1), 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, C. J. (1972). Ecology: The experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legendre, P. (2008). Studying beta diversity: Ecological variation partitioning by multiple regression and canonical analysis. Journal of Plant Ecology, 1(1), 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre, P., & Legendre, L. (2012). Numerical ecology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(1), 28–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, J., & Fenner, M. (2013). The many faces of article-level metrics. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(4), 27–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015). Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(9), 1832–1846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mostert, S. P., Ellenbroek, S. P., Meijer, I., Van Ark, G., & Klasen, E. C. (2010). Societal output and use of research performed by health research groups. Health Research Policy and Systems, 8(1), 30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nabout, J. C., Parreira, M. R., Teresa, F. B., Carneiro, F. M., Cunha, H. F., Ondei, L. S., et al. (2015). Publish (in group) or perish (alone): The trend from single to multi-authorship in biological papers. Scientometrics, 102, 357–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neff, M., & Corley, E. (2009). 35 years and 160,000 articles: A bibliometric exploration of the evolution of ecology. Scientometrics, 80(3), 657–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas, D., & Rowlands, I. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Information Services and Use, 31(1), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F. G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P. R., O’Hara, R. B., et al. (2016). vegan: Community ecology package. R package version 2.3-4, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan. Accessed September 19, 2017.

  • Padial, A. A., Nabout, J. C., Siqueira, T., Bini, L. M., & Diniz-Filho, J. A. (2010). Weak evidence for determinants of citation frequency in ecological articles. Scientometrics, 85, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parreira, M. R., Machado, K. B., Logares, R., Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., & Nabout, J. C. (2017). The roles of geographic distance and socioeconomic factors on international collaboration among ecologists. Scientometrics, 113(3), 1539–1550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, E. C. M., Shiffman, D. S., Darling, E. S., Spillman, N., & Wright, A. J. (2014). How twitter literacy can benefit conservation scientists. Conservation Biology, 28(2), 299–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, E., Tindle, H., Ferguson, M., Ryan, J., & Litchfield, C. (2016). Can we tweet, post and share our way to a more sustainable society? A review of the current contributions and future potential of #socialmediaforsustainability. Annual Review of Environmental and Resources, 41(13), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peoples, B. K., Midway, S. R., Sackett, D., Lynch, A., & Cooney, P. B. (2016). Twitter predicts citation rates of ecological research. PLoS ONE, 11(11), e0166570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piwowar, H. (2013). Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature, 493(7431), 159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priem, J., & Costello, K. L. (2010). How and why scholars cite on Twitter. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintero, I., & Wiens, J. J. (2013). Rates of projected climate change dramatically exceed past rates of climatic niche evolution among vertebrate species. Ecology Letters, 16(8), 1095–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed September 19, 2017.

  • Shiffman, D. S. (2012). Twitter as a tool for conservation education and outreach: What scientific conferences can do to promote live-tweeting. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(3), 257–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dalen, H., & Henkens, K. (2001). What makes a scientific article influential? The case of demographers. Scientometrics, 50(3), 455–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeileis, A., Kleiber, C., & Jackman, S. (2008). Regression models for count data in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 27(8), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous reviewer for criticisms that improved the manuscript. KBM thanks Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) for Doctoral scholarships. JCN, FBT, LMB, JAFDF were supported by productivity fellowships of Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). VHMP was supported by University Research and Scientific Production Support Program (PROBIP/UEG). This paper was developed in the context of National Institutes for Science and Technology (INCT) in Ecology, Evolution and Biodiversity Conservation, supported by MCTIC/CNPq (Proc. 465610/2014-5) and Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Goiás (FAPEG).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidade Estadual de Goiás, Campus de Ciências Exatas e Tecnológicas (CCET), BR-153, nº 3.105, Anápolis, GO, CEP 75132-903, Brazil

    João Carlos Nabout, Fabrício Barreto Teresa & Vitor Hugo Mendonça do Prado

  2. Universidade Federal de Goiás, Campus II UFG, Goiânia, GO, CEP 74690-900, Brazil

    Karine Borges Machado, Luis Mauricio Bini & José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho

Authors
  1. João Carlos Nabout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fabrício Barreto Teresa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karine Borges Machado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vitor Hugo Mendonça do Prado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luis Mauricio Bini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to João Carlos Nabout.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nabout, J.C., Teresa, F.B., Machado, K.B. et al. Do traditional scientometric indicators predict social media activity on scientific knowledge? An analysis of the ecological literature. Scientometrics 115, 1007–1015 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2678-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2678-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation