Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE

Copiello, Sergio

doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03698-w

Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE

Published: 14 September 2020

Volume 125, pages 2449–2469, (2020)
Cite this article

Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Sergio Copiello ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1975-6620¹

1238 Accesses
8 Citations
16 Altmetric
1 Mention
Explore all metrics

Abstract

The so-called altmetrics—short for alternative metrics—have gained their place in the scholarly publishing landscape, especially providing article-level complementary measures. But what do they point to? A hypothesis has found its way into the recent literature: they could be an early sign of impact, conveying in advance the information carried later by citations. Here the focus is on another possible relationship, namely, the one that may exist between alternative metrics and retractions. The research question is as follows: in comparison to non-retracted, contemporary publications, are the retracted articles likely to be more (or less) viewed and commented (but also «tweeted» and «blogged») before the retraction takes place? The above relationship is tested on a set of n = 209 papers retracted by PLoS ONE and a control group including 2n = 418 contemporary, non-retracted articles featured in the same journal. Significant and positive differences in means are found concerning the mentions in peer review sites and the number of views and downloads. On the whole, by considering five alternative metrics, about one-fourth of the retractions are predicted correctly.

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

Why, When, Who, What, How, and Where for Trainees Writing Literature Review Articles

Article 21 May 2019

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Article Open access 30 April 2020

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice

Article Open access 14 October 2022

References

Adie, E., & Roe, W. (2013). Altmetric: Enriching scholarly content with article-level discussion and metrics. Learned Publishing, 26(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1087/20130103.
Article Google Scholar
Alperin, J. P. (2015). Geographic variation in social media metrics: An analysis of Latin American journal articles. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 289–304. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0176.
Article Google Scholar
Anderson, K. (2009). The impact factor: A tool from a bygone era? The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved December 23, 2018, from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06/29/is-the-impact-factor-from-a-bygone-era/.
Araújo, R., Sorensen, A. A., Konkiel, S., & Bloem, B. R. (2017). Top altmetric scores in the Parkinson’s disease literature. Journal of Parkinson’s Disease, 7(1), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.3233/JPD-179000.
Article Google Scholar
Barbic, D., Tubman, M., Lam, H., & Barbic, S. (2016). An analysis of altmetrics in emergency medicine. Academic Emergency Medicine, 23(3), 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12898.
Article Google Scholar
Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2018). Temporal characteristics of retracted articles. Scientometrics, 116(3), 1771–1783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2802-y.
Article Google Scholar
Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Milojević, S., Peters, I., & Wolfram, D. (2018). Peer review, bibliometrics and altmetrics—Do we need them all? Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 55(1), 653–656. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2018.14505501073.
Article Google Scholar
Barnes, C. (2015). The use of altmetrics as a tool for measuring research impact. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 46(2), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2014.1003174.
Article Google Scholar
Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., & Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS ONE, 4(6), e6022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006022.
Article Google Scholar
Bordignon, F. (2020). Self-correction of science: A comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03536-z.
Article Google Scholar
Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 895–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.005.
Article Google Scholar
Bornmann, L. (2015). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics, 103(3), 1123–1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1565-y.
Article Google Scholar
Bornmann, L. (2016). Scientific revolution in scientometrics: The broadening of impact from citation to societal. In C. R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication (pp. 347–359). Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110308464-020.
Chapter Google Scholar
Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2017). Does evaluative scientometrics lose its main focus on scientific quality by the new orientation towards societal impact? Scientometrics, 110(2), 937–943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2200-2.
Article Google Scholar
Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2018a). Do altmetrics correlate with the quality of papers? A large-scale empirical study based on F1000Prime data. PLoS ONE, 13(5), e0197133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197133.
Article Google Scholar
Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2018b). Normalization of zero-inflated data: An empirical analysis of a new indicator family and its use with altmetrics data. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 998–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.010.
Article Google Scholar
Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2018c). Allegation of scientific misconduct increases Twitter attention. Scientometrics, 115(2), 1097–1100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2698-6.
Article Google Scholar
Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., & Adams, J. (2019). Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF). Journal of Informetrics, 13(1), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.01.008.
Article Google Scholar
Brainard, J. (2018). Rethinking retractions. Science, 362(6413), 390–393. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.362.6413.390.
Article Google Scholar
Brody, T., Harnad, S., & Carr, L. (2006). Earlier web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1060–1072. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20373.
Article Google Scholar
Brookes, P. S. (2014). Internet publicity of data problems in the bioscience literature correlates with enhanced corrective action. PeerJ, 2(1), e313. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.313.
Article Google Scholar
Buela-Casal, G., & Zych, I. (2012). What do the scientists think about the impact factor? Scientometrics, 92(2), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0676-y.
Article Google Scholar
Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004.
Article Google Scholar
Chen, W., Xing, Q.-R., Wang, H., & Wang, T. (2018). Retracted publications in the biomedical literature with authors from mainland China. Scientometrics, 114(1), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2565-x.
Article Google Scholar
Cho, J. (2017). A comparative study of the impact of Korean research articles in four academic fields using altmetrics. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 18(1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-02-2016-0005.
Article Google Scholar
Cooke, S. J., Gallagher, A. J., Sopinka, N. M., Nguyen, V. M., Skubel, R. A., Hammerschlag, N., et al. (2017). Considerations for effective science communication. FACETS, 2(1), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2016-0055.
Article Google Scholar
Copiello, S. (2019). Research interest: Another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate. Scientometrics, 120(1), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03124-w.
Article Google Scholar
Copiello, S. (2020). Multi-criteria altmetric scores are likely to be redundant with respect to a subset of the underlying information. Scientometrics, 124(1), 819–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03491-9.
Article Google Scholar
Copiello, S., & Bonifaci, P. (2018). A few remarks on ResearchGate score and academic reputation. Scientometrics, 114(1), 301–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2582-9.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23309.
Article Google Scholar
Cronin, B. (2001). Bibliometrics and beyond: Some thoughts on web-based citation analysis. Journal of Information Science, 27(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555150102700101.
Article Google Scholar
De Silva, P. U. K., & Vance, C. K. (2017). Scientific scholarly communication: The changing landscape. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50627-2.
Book Google Scholar
de Winter, J. C. F. (2015). The relationship between tweets, citations, and article views for PLOS ONE articles. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1773–1779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1445-x.
Article Google Scholar
Díaz-Faes, A. A., Bowman, T. D., & Costas, R. (2019). Towards a second generation of ‘social media metrics’: Characterizing Twitter communities of attention around science. PLoS ONE, 14(5), e0216408. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216408.
Article Google Scholar
Erdt, M., Nagarajan, A., Sin, S. C. J., & Theng, Y. L. (2016). Altmetrics: An analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1117–1166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2077-0.
Article Google Scholar
Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e123. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2012.
Article Google Scholar
Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028–17033. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109.
Article Google Scholar
Fang, Z., & Costas, R. (2020). Studying the accumulation velocity of altmetric data tracked by Altmetric.com. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03405-9.
Article Google Scholar
Furman, J. L., Jensen, K., & Murray, F. (2012). Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine. Research Policy, 41(2), 276–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.11.001.
Article Google Scholar
Galligan, F., & Dyas-Correia, S. (2013). Altmetrics: rethinking the way we measure. Serials Review, 39(1), 56–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2013.10765486.
Article Google Scholar
Glänzel, W., & Gorraiz, J. (2015). Usage metrics versus altmetrics: confusing terminology? Scientometrics, 102(3), 2161–2164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1472-7.
Article Google Scholar
Greenhow, C., Gleason, B., & Staudt Willet, K. B. (2019). Social scholarship revisited: Changing scholarly practices in the age of social media. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 987–1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12772.
Article Google Scholar
Gu, F., & Widén-Wulff, G. (2011). Scholarly communication and possible changes in the context of social media: A Finnish case study. The Electronic Library, 29(6), 762–776. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471111187999.
Article Google Scholar
Gumpenberger, C., Glänzel, W., & Gorraiz, J. (2016). The ecstasy and the agony of the altmetric score. Scientometrics, 108(2), 977–982. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1991-5.
Article Google Scholar
Hammarfelt, B. (2014). Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1419–1430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1261-3.
Article Google Scholar
Haunschild, R., & Bornmann, L. (2018). Field- and time-normalization of data with many zeros: An empirical analysis using citation and Twitter data. Scientometrics, 116(2), 997–1012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2771-1.
Article Google Scholar
Haustein, S. (2016). Grand challenges in altmetrics: Heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies. Scientometrics, 108(1), 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1910-9.
Article Google Scholar
Haustein, S. (2019). Scholarly Twitter metrics. In W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (Eds.), Springer handbook ofscience and technology indicators (pp. 729–760). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_28.
Chapter Google Scholar
Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., Holmberg, K., Tsou, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2016). Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot” accounts on Twitter. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(1), 232–238. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23456.
Article Google Scholar
Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015a). Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0120495. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120495.
Article Google Scholar
Haustein, S., Larivière, V., Thelwall, M., Amyot, D., & Peters, I. (2014a). Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ? IT - Information Technology, 56(5), 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1515/itit-2014-1048.
Article Google Scholar
Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2014b). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1145–1163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1221-3.
Article Google Scholar
Haustein, S., & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 446–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.04.002.
Article Google Scholar
Haustein, S., Sugimoto, C., & Larivière, V. (2015b). Guest editorial: Social media metrics in scholarly communication. Aslib Journal of Information Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-03-2015-0047.
Article Google Scholar
Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C., & Meckel, M. (2016). A relational altmetric? Network centrality on ResearchGate as an indicator of scientific impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 765–775. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23423.
Article Google Scholar
Holmberg, K. J. (2016). Altmetrics for information professionals. Kidlington: Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2014-0-03379-5.
Book Google Scholar
Kirby, D. A. (2008). Hollywood knowledge: Communication between scientific and entertainment cultures. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts (pp. 165–180). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7_10.
Chapter Google Scholar
Kirk, R. E. (2013). Experimental design. Procedures for the behavioral sciences (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Book Google Scholar
Kuo, T., Tsai, G. Y., Jim Wu, Y. C., & Alhalabi, W. (2017). From sociability to creditability for academics. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 975–984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.044.
Article Google Scholar
Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0580-x.
Article Google Scholar
Liu, J., & Adie, E. (2013). New perspectives on article-level metrics: Developing ways to assess research uptake and impact online. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 26(2), 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.79.
Article Google Scholar
Loach, T. V., & Evans, T. S. (2015). Ranking journals using altmetrics. In A. Ali Salah, Y. Tonta, A. A. Akdag Salah, C. R. Sugimoto, & A. Umut (Eds.), Proceedings of ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference. Istanbul: Bogaziçi University Printhouse.
Maflahi, N., & Thelwall, M. (2018). How quickly do publications get read? The evolution of mendeley reader counts for new articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(1), 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23909.
Article Google Scholar
Manca, S. (2017). An analysis of ResearchGate and Academia.edu as socio-technical systems for scholars’ networked learning: A multilevel framework proposal. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/985.
Article Google Scholar
Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2017). Networked scholarship and motivations for social media use in scholarly communication. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i2.2859.
Article Google Scholar
Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2011). The paper is not sacred. Nature, 480(7378), 449–450. https://doi.org/10.1038/480449a.
Article Google Scholar
Marek, K., & Valauskas, E. J. (2002). Web logs as indices of electronic journal use: Tools for identifying a “Classic” article. Libri, 52(4), 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1515/LIBR.2002.220.
Article Google Scholar
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018). Author-level metrics in the new academic profile platforms: The online behaviour of the Bibliometrics community. Journal of Informetrics, 12(2), 494–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.04.001.
Article Google Scholar
McCabe, M. J., & Snyder, C. M. (2007). Academic journal prices in a digital age: A two-sided market model academic journal prices in a digital age. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 7(1), Article 2.
McHugh, U. M., & Yentis, S. M. (2019). An analysis of retractions of papers authored by Scott Reuben, Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii. Anaesthesia, 74(1), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.14414.
Article Google Scholar
Meschede, C., & Siebenlist, T. (2018). Cross-metric compatability and inconsistencies of altmetrics. Scientometrics, 115(1), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2674-1.
Article Google Scholar
Meyer, R. W. (1997). Monopoly power and electronic journals. The Library Quarterly, 67(4), 325–349. https://doi.org/10.1086/629970.
Article Google Scholar
Mikki, S., Zygmuntowska, M., Gjesdal, Ø. L., & Al Ruwehy, H. A. (2015). Digital presence of Norwegian scholars on academic network sites—Where and who are they? PLoS ONE, 10(11), e0142709. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142709.
Article Google Scholar
Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(8), 1627–1638. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23071.
Article Google Scholar
Moylan, E. C., & Kowalczuk, M. K. (2016). Why articles are retracted: A retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. British Medical Journal Open, 6(11), e012047. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012047.
Article Google Scholar
Nentwich, M., & König, R. (2014). Academia goes Facebook? The potential of social network sites in the scholarly realm. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening science (pp. 107–124). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_7.
Chapter Google Scholar
Neylon, C., & Wu, S. (2009). Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biology, 7(11), e1000242. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000242.
Article Google Scholar
Nuzzolese, A. G., Ciancarini, P., Gangemi, A., Peroni, S., Poggi, F., & Presutti, V. (2019). Do altmetrics work for assessing research quality? Scientometrics, 118(2), 539–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2988-z.
Article Google Scholar
Orduna-Malea, E., Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2017). Do ResearchGate scores create ghost academic reputations? Scientometrics, 112(1), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2396-9.
Article Google Scholar
Ortega, J. L. (2015). Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC’s members. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.004.
Article Google Scholar
Ortega, J. L. (2018a). The life cycle of altmetric impact: A longitudinal study of six metrics from PlumX. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 579–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.06.001.
Article Google Scholar
Ortega, J. L. (2018b). Disciplinary differences of the impact of altmetric. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 365(7), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fny049.
Article Google Scholar
Ortega, J. L. (2018c). Reliability and accuracy of altmetric providers: A comparison among Altmetric.com, PlumX and Crossref Event Data. Scientometrics, 116(3), 2123–2138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2838-z.
Article Google Scholar
Ortega, J. L. (2019). Exploratory analysis of Publons metrics and their relationship with bibliometric and altmetric impact. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 71(1), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-06-2018-0153.
Article Google Scholar
Ortega, J. L. (2020). Blogs and news sources coverage in altmetrics data providers: A comparative analysis by country, language, and subject. Scientometrics, 122(1), 555–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03299-2.
Article Google Scholar
Ouchi, A., Saberi, M. K., Ansari, N., Hashempour, L., & Isfandyari-Moghaddam, A. (2019). Do altmetrics correlate with citations? A study based on the 1,000 most-cited articles. Information Discovery and Delivery, 47(4), 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-07-2019-0050.
Article Google Scholar
Pooladian, A., & Borrego, Á. (2016). A longitudinal study of the bookmarking of library and information science literature in Mendeley. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1135–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.10.003.
Article Google Scholar
Priem, J. (2014). Altmetrics. In B. Cronin & C. R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact (pp. 263–288). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Priem, J., & Costello, K. L. (2010). How and why scholars cite on Twitter. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504701201.
Article Google Scholar
Priem, J., Groth, P., & Taraborelli, D. (2012a). The altmetrics collection. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e48753. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048753.
Article Google Scholar
Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. H. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i7.2874.
Article Google Scholar
Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012b). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4745
Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved March 21, 2020, from https://altmetrics.org/manifesto/.
Procter, R., Williams, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., Snee, H., Voss, A., et al. (2010). Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1926), 4039–4056. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0155.
Article Google Scholar
Repiso, R., Castillo-Esparcia, A., & Torres-Salinas, D. (2019). Altmetrics, alternative indicators for Web of Science Communication studies journals. Scientometrics, 119(2), 941–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03070-7.
Article Google Scholar
Riise, J. (2008). Bringing science to the public. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts (pp. 301–309). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7_18.
Chapter Google Scholar
Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Russell, B., Canty, N., & Watkinson, A. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing, 24(3), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1087/20110306.
Article Google Scholar
Saberi, M. K., & Ekhtiyari, F. (2019). Usage, captures, mentions, social media and citations of LIS highly cited papers: An altmetrics study. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 20(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-10-2018-0025.
Article Google Scholar
Said, A., Bowman, T. D., Abbasi, R. A., Aljohani, N. R., Hassan, S.-U., & Nawaz, R. (2019). Mining network-level properties of Twitter altmetrics data. Scientometrics, 120(1), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03112-0.
Article Google Scholar
Salajegheh, M., & Dayari, S. (2019). Comparing the citations counts and altmetrics of the top medical science journals in Scopus. International Journal of Information Science and Management, 17(1), 59–72.
Google Scholar
Schlögl, C., Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., Jack, K., & Kraker, P. (2014). Comparison of downloads, citations and readership data for two information systems journals. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1113–1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1365-9.
Article Google Scholar
Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2012). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e35869. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035869.
Article Google Scholar
Shema, H., Hahn, O., Mazarakis, A., & Peters, I. (2019). Retractions from altmetric and bibliometric perspectives. Information - Wissenschaft & Praxis, 70(2–3), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1515/iwp-2019-2006.
Article Google Scholar
Shrivastava, R., & Mahajan, P. (2015). Relationship amongst ResearchGate altmetric indicators and Scopus bibliometric indicators. New Library World, 116(9/10), 564–577. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-03-2015-0017.
Article Google Scholar
Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131–1143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2.
Article Google Scholar
Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, V., & Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2037–2062. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23833.
Article Google Scholar
Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2020). Altmetrics and societal impact measurements: Match or mismatch? A literature review. El Profesional de la Información, 29(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.02.
Article Google Scholar
Thelwall, M. (2017). Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields? Scientometrics, 113(3), 1721–1731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2557-x.
Article Google Scholar
Thelwall, M. (2018). Early Mendeley readers correlate with later citation counts. Scientometrics, 115(3), 1231–1240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2715-9.
Article Google Scholar
Thelwall, M. (2019). Do Mendeley reader counts indicate the value of arts and humanities research? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(3), 781–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617732381.
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), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064841.
Article Google Scholar
Thelwall, M., & Nevill, T. (2018). Could scientists use Altmetric.com scores to predict longer term citation counts? Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.008.
Article Google Scholar
Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (2016). Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(8), 1962–1972. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23501.
Article Google Scholar
Torres-Salinas, D., Cabezas-Clavijo, Á., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2013). Altmetrics: New Indicators for Scientific Communication in Web 2.0. Comunicar, 21(41), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.3916/C41-2013-05.
Article Google Scholar
Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512(7513), 126–129. https://doi.org/10.1038/512126a.
Article Google Scholar
Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012). Networked participatory scholarship: Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers & Education, 58(2), 766–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.001.
Article Google Scholar
Vogl, S., Scherndl, T., & Kühberger, A. (2018). #Psychology: A bibliometric analysis of psychological literature in the online media. Scientometrics, 115(3), 1253–1269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2727-5.
Article Google Scholar
Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007.
Article Google Scholar
Waltman, L., & Costas, R. (2014). F1000 Recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation: A comparison with citations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23040.
Article Google Scholar
Wang, X., Wang, Z., & Xu, S. (2013). Tracing scientist’s research trends realtimely. Scientometrics, 95(2), 717–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0884-5.
Article Google Scholar
Weller, K., Dröge, E., & Puschmann, C. (2011). Citation analysis in twitter: Approaches for defining and measuring information flows within tweets during scientific conferences. In M. Rowe, M. Stankovic, A.-S. Dadzie, & M. Hardey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st workshop on making sense of microposts (#MSM2011) (pp. 1–12). Heraklion: CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Google Scholar
Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control ? Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on science and technology indicators (pp. 847–857).
Wouters, P., Zahedi, Z., & Costas, R. (2019). Social media metrics for new research evaluation. In W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (Eds.), Springer handbook of science and technology indicators (pp. 687–713). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_26.
Chapter Google Scholar
Yu, M.-C., Wu, Y.-C. J., Alhalabi, W., Kao, H.-Y., & Wu, W.-H. (2016). ResearchGate: An effective altmetric indicator for active researchers? Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1001–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.007.
Article Google Scholar
Zahedi, Z., & Costas, R. (2018). General discussion of data quality challenges in social media metrics: Extensive comparison of four major altmetric data aggregators. PLoS ONE, 13(5), e0197326. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197326.
Article Google Scholar
Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014). How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1491–1513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1264-0.
Article Google Scholar
Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2017). Mendeley readership as a filtering tool to identify highly cited publications. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(10), 2511–2521. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23883.
Article Google Scholar
Zahedi, Z., Fenner, M., & Costas, R. (2015). Consistency among altmetrics data provider/aggregators: What are the challenges? In The 2015 altmetrics workshop-Amsterdam, 9 October 2015.
Zupanc, G. K. H. (2014). Impact beyond the impact factor. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 200(2), 113–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-013-0863-1.
Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Architecture, IUAV University of Venice, Dorsoduro 2206, 30123, Venice, Italy
Sergio Copiello

Authors

Sergio Copiello
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sergio Copiello.

Appendix

See Table

Table 7 Minor retraction reasons

Full size table

7.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Copiello, S. Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE. Scientometrics 125, 2449–2469 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03698-w

Download citation

Received: 23 April 2020
Published: 14 September 2020
Issue Date: December 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03698-w

Keywords

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

Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE

Abstract

Access this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Why, When, Who, What, How, and Where for Trainees Writing Literature Review Articles

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice

References

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Corresponding author

Appendix

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keywords

Navigation

Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE

Abstract

Access this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Why, When, Who, What, How, and Where for Trainees Writing Literature Review Articles

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice

References

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Corresponding author

Appendix

Appendix

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Share this article

Keywords

Search

Navigation