Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web?
- First Online:
- 1.3k Downloads
Academics can now use the web and the social websites to disseminate scholarly information in a variety of different ways. Although some scholars have taken advantage of these new online opportunities, it is not clear how widespread their uptake is or how much impact they can have. This study assesses the extent to which successful scientists have social web presences, focusing on one influential group: highly cited researchers working at European institutions. It also assesses the impact of these presences. We manually and systematically identified if the European highly cited researchers had profiles in Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic Search, Mendeley, Academia and LinkedIn or any content in SlideShare. We then used URL mentions and altmetric indicators to assess the impact of the web presences found. Although most of the scientists had an institutional website of some kind, few had created a profile in any social website investigated, and LinkedIn—the only non-academic site in the list—was the most popular. Scientists having one kind of social web profile were more likely to have another in many cases, especially in the life sciences and engineering. In most cases it was possible to estimate the relative impact of the profiles using a readily available statistic and there were disciplinary differences in the impact of the different kinds of profiles. Most social web profiles had some evidence of uptake, if not impact; nevertheless, the value of the indicators used is unclear.
KeywordsHighly cited scientists Europe Web presence Indicators Impact Social web Assessment
- Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, S., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the social Web. In Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 98–109), Montréal: Science-Metrix and OST.Google Scholar
- Björk, B.-C., Welling P., Laakso, M., Majlender P., Hedlund T., & Gudnasson, G. (2010). Open access to the scientific journal literature: Situation 2009. PLoS One, 5(6). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011273.
- Bollen, J., Van De Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., & Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures, PLoS One, 4(6). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006022.
- Couto, F.M., Pesquita, C., Grego, T., & Veríssimo, P. Handling self-citations using Google Scholar. Cybermetrics. 2009, 13(1). Online document. http://cybermetrics.cindoc.csic.es/articles/v13i1p2.html. Accessed 21 November 2012.
- Cronin, B. (1984). The citation process. The role and significance of citations in scientific communication. London: Taylor Graham.Google Scholar
- Elsevier (2012). Scopus. Content Coverage Guide. Online document. http://files.sciverse.com/documents/pdf/ContentCoverageGuide-jan-2013.pdf Accessed 15 July 2013.
- Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Hadas, S., & Terliesner, J. (2013). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. In Proceeding of 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informatics Conference (pp. 468–483). Vienna, 16th–19th July 2013.Google Scholar
- Jacso, P. (2005). As we may search—Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89(9), 1537–1547.Google Scholar
- Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Web impact metrics for research assessment. In B. Cronin & C. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Mas-Bleda, A. Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., & Aguillo, I. (2013). European highly cited scientists’ presence in the social Web (pp. 1966–1969). In Proceeding of 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference (pp. 1966–1967). Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
- Menendez, M., Angeli, A. de, & Menestrina, Z. (2012). Exploring the virtual space of academia. In 10th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (pp. 49–63). http://coop-2012.grenoble-inp.fr/pdf_papers/menendez_25.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2013.
- Moed H. F., & Visser M. S. (2008). Appraisal of citation data sources. A report to HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England) by the Centre for Science and Technology Studies. Leiden: Leiden University.Google Scholar
- Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Assessing the Mendeley readership of social sciences and humanities research. In Proceeding of 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference (pp. 200–214). Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
- Neylon, C., & Wu. S. (2009). Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biol, 7(11). doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000242.
- Pitzek, S. (2002). Impact of online-availability of science literature. Online document. http://www.vmars.tuwien.ac.at/courses/proseminar/doc/paperserver.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2013.
- Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. M. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15(7). Online document, http://firstmonday.org/article/viewArticle/2874/2570. Accessed 19 March 2013.
- Priem, J., Parra, C., Piwowar, H., Groth, P., & Waagmeester, A. (2012). Uncovering impacts: a case study in using altmetrics tools. In Second International Conference on the Future of Scholarly Communication and Scientific Publishing. Heraklion, Greece. http://jasonpriem.org/self-archived/altmetrics-sepublica-cameraready.pdf. Accessed March 19, 2013.
- Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A, &Hemminger, B.M. (2011). Altmetrics in the wild: An exploratory study of impact metrics based on social media. http://altmetrics.org/altmetrics12/priem/. Accessed March 19, 2013.
- Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Alt-Metrics: A Manifesto. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/. Accessed March 19, 2013.
- Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2012). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PLoS One, 7(5). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035869.
- Smith, A. G., (2004). Web links as analogues of citations. Information Research, 9(4). Online document. http://informationr.net/ir/9-4/paper188.html. Accessed Oct 20, 2012.
- Taraborelli, D. (2008). Soft peer review: social software and distributed scientific evaluation. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (pp. 99–110). France. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/8279/1/8279.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2013.
- Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other candidates. PLoS One, 8(5). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064841.
- Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2014). Academia.edu: Social network or academic network? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 721–731.Google Scholar
- Thomson Reuters (2012). Methodology for identifying highly-cited researchers. http://www.highlycited.com/methodology/. Accessed February 17, 2013.
- Watson, A. B. (2009). Comparing citations and downloads for individual articles. Journal of Vision, 9(4). http://www.journalofvision.org/content/9/4/i. Accessed July 2, 2012.
- Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control – tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Netherlands. SURFfoundation [report]. http://www.surf.nl/en/publicaties/Pages/Users_narcissism_control.aspx. Accessed March 6, 2013.
- Zahedi, Z, Costas, R. & Wouters, P. (2013). How well developed are Altmetrics? Cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. In 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informatics Conference (p. 876–884). Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
- Zhao, D. (2005). Challenges of scholarly publications on the Web to the evaluation of science -A comparison of author visibility on the Web and in print journals. Information Processing & Management, 41(6), 1403-1418.Google Scholar