Scientometrics

, Volume 101, Issue 1, pp 337–356 | Cite as

Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web?

  • Amalia Mas-Bleda
  • Mike Thelwall
  • Kayvan Kousha
  • Isidro F. Aguillo
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Highly cited scientists Europe Web presence Indicators Impact Social web Assessment 

References

  1. Adie, E., & Roe, W. (2013). Altmetric: Enriching scholarly content with article-level discussion and metrics. Learned Publishing, 26(1), 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguillo, I. F. (2012). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91(2), 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College & Research Libraries, 65(5), 372–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Library, 3(1), 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bar-Ilan, J. (2004). A microscopic link analysis of academic institutions within a country—The case of Israel. Scientometrics, 59(3), 391–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bar-Ilan, J. (2010). Web of Science with the Conference Proceedings Citation Indexes: The case of computer science. Scientometrics, 83(3), 809–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barjak, F. (2006). The role of the Internet in informal scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1350–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barjak, F., Li, X., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Which factors explain the web impact of scientists’ personal homepages? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2), 200–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barjak, F., & Thelwall, M. (2008). A statistical analysis of the web presences of European life sciences research teams. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(4), 628–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brooks, T. A. (1986). Evidence of complex citer motivations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37(1), 34–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brown, C. (2007). The role of Web-based information in the scholarly communication of chemists: Citation and content analyses of American Chemical Society Journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2055–2065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen, C., Sun, K., Wu, G., Tang, Q., Qin, J., Chiu, K., et al. (2009). The impact of internet resources on scholarly communication: A citation analysis. Scientometrics, 81(2), 459–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chung, J. C., & Park, H. W. (2012). Web visibility of scholars in media and communication journals. Scientometrics, 93(1), 207–215. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0707-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.
  20. Cronin, B. (1982). Norms and functions in citation: The view of journals editors and referees in psychology. Social Science Information Studies, 2, 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cronin, B. (1984). The citation process. The role and significance of citations in scientific communication. London: Taylor Graham.Google Scholar
  22. Dumont, K., & Frindte, W. (2005). Content analysis of the homepages of academic psychologists. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(1), 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elsevier (2012). Scopus. Content Coverage Guide. Online document. http://files.sciverse.com/documents/pdf/ContentCoverageGuide-jan-2013.pdf Accessed 15 July 2013.
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Figueiredo, F., Pinto, H., Belém, F., Almeida, J., Gonçalves, M., Fernandes, D., et al. (2013). Assessing the quality of textual features in social media. Information Processing and Management, 49(1), 222–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goodrum, A. A., McCain, K. W., Lawrence, S., & Giles, C. L. (2001). Scholarly publishing in the Internet age: A citation analysis of computer science literature. Information Processing and Management, 37, 661–675.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Haustein, S., & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 446–457. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.04.002.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Jamali, H. R., & Nicholas, D. (2010). Interdisciplinarity and the information-seeking behavior of scientists. Information Processing and Management, 46(2), 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kalay, Y. E. (2008). Impacts of new media on scholarly publishing. Policy Futures in Education, 6(1), 122–131. doi:10.2304/pfie.2008.6.1.122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2006). Motivations for URL citations to open access library and information science articles. Scientometrics, 68(3), 501–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar citations and Google/Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1055–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Assessing the impact of research on teaching: An automatic analysis of online syllabuses in science and social sciences. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2060–2069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Google book search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1537–1549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Rezaie, S. (2010). Using the web for research evaluation: The integrated online impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 4(1), 124–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Li, X., Thelwall, M., Wilkinson, D., & Musgrove, P. (2005). National and international university departmental web site interlinking. Scientometrics, 64(2), 151–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liu, Z. (2003). Trends in transforming scholarly communication and their implications. Information Processing and Management, 39(6), 889–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mas-Bleda, A., & Aguillo, I. (2013). Can a personal website be useful as an information source to assess individual scientists? The case of European highly cited researchers. Scientometrics, 96(1), 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Mas-Bleda, A., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., & Aguillo, I. (2014). Successful researchers publicizing research online: an outlink analysis of European highly cited scientists’ personal websites. Journal of Documentation, 70(1), 148–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.
  46. Moed, H. F. (2005). Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 56(10), 1088–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. Neylon, C., & Wu. S. (2009). Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biol, 7(11). doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000242.
  50. Ortega, J. L., & Aguillo, I. (2009). Mapping world-class universities on the web. Information Processing and Management, 45(2), 272–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ortega, J. L., Aguillo, I., Cothey, V., & Scharnhorst, A. (2008). Maps of the academic web in the European Higher Education Area—An exploration of visual web indicators. Scientometrics, 74(2), 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.
  53. Polydoratou, P., & Moyle, M. (2009). Exploring aspects of scientific publishing in astrophysics and cosmology: The views of scientists. In M.-A. Sicilia & M. D. Lytras (Eds.), Metadata and semantics (pp. 179–190). United States: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ponte, D., & Simon, J. (2011). Scholarly communication 2.0: Exploring researchers’ opinions on Web 2.0 for scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and dissemination. Serials Review, 37(3), 149–156. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2011.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.
  56. 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.
  57. 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.
  58. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Alt-Metrics: A Manifesto. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/. Accessed March 19, 2013.
  59. 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, 368(1926), 4039–4056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Russell, B., Canty, N., & Watkinson, A. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing, 24(3), 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Russell, J., Ainsworth, S., & Díaz-Aguilar, J. (2012). Web visibility or wasted opportunity? Case studies from Mexican research institutes. ASLIB Proceedings, 64(1), 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.
  63. Shingareva, I., & Lizárraga-Celaya, C. (2012). Relevant changes in scientific publishing in mathematics and physics. Publishing Research Quarterly, 28(4), 294–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.
  65. 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.
  66. Thelwall, M., & Harries, G. (2004). Do the web sites of higher rated scholars have significantly more online impact? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(2), 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.
  68. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2008). Online presentations as a source of scientific impact?: An analysis of PowerPoint files citing academic journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 805–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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
  70. Thelwall, M., & Smith, A. (2002). Interlinking between Asia-Pacific university web sites. Scientometrics, 55(3), 363–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thelwall, M., & Sud, P. (2011). A comparison of methods for collecting web citation data for academic organizations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(8), 1488–1497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Thelwall, M., Sud, P., & Wilkinson, D. (2012). Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(4), 805–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Thelwall, M., & Zuccala, A. (2008). A university-centred European Union link analysis. Scientometrics, 75(3), 407–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Thomson Reuters (2012). Methodology for identifying highly-cited researchers. http://www.highlycited.com/methodology/. Accessed February 17, 2013.
  75. Torres-Salinas, D., Ruiz-Pérez, R., & Delgado-López-Cózar, E. (2009). Google Scholar como herramienta para la evaluación científica. El profesional de la información, 18(5), 501–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Van Leeuwen, T. N., Moed, H. F., Tijssen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51(1), 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2004). Can web citations be a measure of impact? An investigation of journals in the life sciences. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 516–526. doi:10.1002/meet.1450410160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2005). Web citation data for impact assessment: A comparison of four science disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(10), 1075–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vinkler, P. (1987). A Quasi-quantitative citation model. Scientometrics, 12(1–2), 47–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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.
  81. Wilkinson, D., Harries, G., Thelwall, M., & Price, E. (2003). Motivations for academic web site interlinking: Evidence for the web as a novel source of information on informal scholarly communication. Journal of Information Science, 29(1), 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and controltracking 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.
  83. Ynalvez, M., Duque, R. B., Mbatia, P., Sooryamoorthy, R., Palackal, A., & Shrum, W. (2005). When do scientists “adopt” the Internet? Dimensions of connectivity in developing areas. Scientometrics, 63(1), 39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 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
  85. 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

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amalia Mas-Bleda
    • 1
  • Mike Thelwall
    • 2
  • Kayvan Kousha
    • 2
  • Isidro F. Aguillo
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Public Goods and Policies, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)MadridSpain
  2. 2.Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, Faculty of Science and EngineeringUniversity of WolverhamptonWolverhamptonUK

Personalised recommendations