Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 109, Issue 3, pp 1497–1510 | Cite as

Path analysis of the relationship between visibility and citation: the mediating roles of save, discussion, and recommendation metrics

  • Saeideh Ebrahimy
  • Jafar Mehrad
  • Fatemeh Setareh
  • Massoud Hosseinchari
Article

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the mediating role of save, discussion, and recommendation measures in the relationship between visibility and citation in biomedical articles in 2009–2013. Path analysis method was used to assess the causal relationships between the variables in this descriptive correlational study. Systematic and random stratified methods were employed for sampling. The sample size was determined to be 1892 articles using the Cochrane formula and data were gathered by using the PLOS altmetrics. The study’s model fit indices showed that visibility influences citation both directly and indirectly through the mediating role of save. Discussion had a significant, negative role in the relationship between visibility and citation, and recommendation did not have any significant mediating role in this relationship. Among the social networks presenting altmetrics, it seems that networks such as Mendeley which provide a basis for saving scientific articles have an important and significant effect on the amount of future citations through visibility metrics. This is while social networks discussing scientific findings have a negative effect on the future citation of articles through visibility metrics. This asserts that social networks based on save have an influential role as the basis of scientific interaction.

Keywords

Path analysis Visibility Citation Save Discussion Recommendation Mediation 

References

  1. Agichtein, E., Castillo, C., Donato, D., Gionis, A., & Mishne, G. (2008). Finding high-quality content in social media. In Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on web search and data mining (pp. 183–194).Google Scholar
  2. Ale Ebrahim, N., Salehi, H., Embi, M. A., Habibi, F., Gholizadeh, H., & Motahar, S. M. (2014). Visibility and citation impact. International Education Studies, 7(4), 120–125.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, L., Jones, C., Dolby, K., Lynn, D., & Walport, M. (2009). Looking for landmarks: The role of expert review and bibliometric analysis in evaluating scientific publication outputs. PLoS ONE, 4(6), e5910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College & Research Libraries, 65, 372–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bar-Ilan, J. (2012). JASIST@ mendeley. In ACM Web Science Conference 2012 Workshop.Google Scholar
  6. Bar-Ilan, J. (2014). Astrophysics publications on ArXiv, Scopus and Mendeley: A case study. Scientometrics, 100, 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars visibility on the social web. In 17th international conference on science and technology indicators.Google Scholar
  8. Bazrafshan, A., Haghdoost, A., & Zare, M. (2014). A comparison of downloads, readership and citations data for the Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ideas. Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ideas. Retrieved December 15, 2013 from http://dx.doi.org.
  9. Bornmann, L. (2014). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Journal of Educational Sciences and Research. Retrieved December 15, 2013 from http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.8010.
  10. Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and f1000. Informetrics, 7(2), 286–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brody, T., & Harnad, S. (2005). Earlier web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science Technology, 57(8), 1060–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buschman, M., & Michalek, A. (2013). Are alternative metrics still alternative? Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(4), 35–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butler, D. (2011). Experts question rankings of journals. Nature News, 478(7367), 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2014). Do altmetics correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Retrieved December 15, 2013 from http://arxiv.org.
  15. Das, A. K., & Mishra, S. (2014). Genesis of altmetrics or article-level metrics for measuring efficacy of scholarly communications: Current perspectives. Journal of Science Research, 3, 82–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis, P. M., Lewenstein, B. V., Simon, D. H., Booth, J. G., & Connolly, M. J. (2008). Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 337, a568. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Winter, J. C. F. (2015). The relationship between tweets, citations, and article views for PLOS ONE articles. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1773–1779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ebrahimy, S. (2007). The cinsiderations and limitations in using Impact Factor. Faslnameh Ketab, 18(3), 141–157. (in Persian).Google Scholar
  19. Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biology, 4(5), 692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. doi: 10.2196/jmir.20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Galligan, F., & Dyas-Correia, S. (2013). Altmetrics: Rethinking the way we measure. Serials Review, 39(1), 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guerrero-Bote, V., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2012). Relationship between downloads and citation and the influence of language. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 1469–1484). Retrieved May 10, 2014 from http://ebrp.elsevier.com.
  23. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., & Larivière, V. (2014). Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 656–669. doi: 10.1002/asi.23101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haustein, S., & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 446–457.Google Scholar
  25. Howard, J. (2012). Scholars seek better ways to track impact online. In The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved May 10, 2014 from http://chronicle.com.
  26. Huggett, S. (2012). F1000 journal rankings: An alternative way to evaluate the scientific impact of scholarly communications. Research Trends, 26, 7–11.Google Scholar
  27. Jabbary, N. (2013). Suitable model of sharing knowledge factors among faculty of Gorgan Universities. In Sixth conference of knowledge management. Published article in conference of knowledge management, International conference hall of ShahidBeheshti, Tehran. (in Persian).Google Scholar
  28. Mazarei, Z. (2013). Review of relationship between recognition of scientific products and marking them on Citeulike in the field of knowledge and information science during 2004 to 2012. Master’s thesis in Knowledge & Information Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. (in Persian).Google Scholar
  29. Moed, H. (2005). Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(10), 1088–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Assessing non-standard article impact using f1000 labels. Scientometrics, 97(2), 383–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nieder, C., Dalhaug, A., & Aandahl, G. (2013). Correlation between article download and citation figures for highly accessed articles from five open access oncology journals. Springer Plus, 2. Retrieved May 10, 2014 from www.springerplus.com.
  32. Parirokh, M., & Khatamiyanfar, P. (2007). Review of status and knowledge sharing platforms in the Libraries of AstanQodsRazavi with adaptation of NonakaandTakeuchi model. Library and Information Science, 10(4), 176–212. (in Persian).Google Scholar
  33. Priem, J., Piwowar, H., & Hemminger, B. (2012).Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. In ACM web science conference ACM web science conference. Retrieved May 10, 2014 from http://arxiv.org.
  34. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved December 10, 2014, from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto.
  35. Refoua, Sh, Tajdaran, M., & Rezaei, S. (2013). Review of infrastructure component to implement the sharing of knowledge in the insurance industry. Academic Librarianship and Information Research, 47(3), 325–346. (in Persian).Google Scholar
  36. Schloegl, C., & Gorraiz, J. (2010). Comparison of citation and usage indicators: The case of oncology journals. Scientometrics, 82(3), 567–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schlögl, C., Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., Jack, K., & Krake, P. (2014a). Are downloads and readership data a substitute for citations? The case of a scholarly journal. In Libraries in the digital age (LIDA) proceedings (p. 13). Retrieved May 10, 2014, from http://ozk.unizd.hr/proceedings.
  38. Schlögl, C., Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., Jack, K., & Krake, P. (2014b). Comparison of downloads, citations and readership data for two information systems journals. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1113–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 1018–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shuai, X., Pepe, A., & Bollen, J. (2012). How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: Article downloads, twitter mentions, and citations. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e47523. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Siamak, M. (2007). Open access journals: Problems and critics. Library and Information Science, 10(2), 188–209.Google Scholar
  42. Stojanovski, J. (2013). Visibility and (alt)metrics of the Croatian Open Access (OA) journals. Retrieved May 10, 2014, from http://www.researchgate.net.
  43. Tammaro, A. (2014). Altmetrics in the humanities: Perceptions of Italian scholars. In Libraries in the digital age. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from http://ozk.unizd.hr.
  44. 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. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication Yearbook, 36, 143–189.Google Scholar
  46. Wardle, D. (2010). Do Faculty of 1000 (F1000) ratings of ecological publications serve as reasonable predictors of their future impact? Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 3, 11–15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saeideh Ebrahimy
    • 1
  • Jafar Mehrad
    • 1
  • Fatemeh Setareh
    • 1
  • Massoud Hosseinchari
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Knowledge and Information Science, School of Education and PsychologyShiraz UniversityShirazIran
  2. 2.Department of Educational Psychology, School of Education and PsychologyShiraz UniversityShirazIran

Personalised recommendations