Context of altmetrics data matters: an investigation of count type and user category
Context of altmetrics data is essential for further understanding value of altmetrics beyond raw counts. Mainly two facets of context are explored, the count type which reflects user’s multiple altmetrics behaviors and user category which reflects part of user’s background. Based on 5.18 records provided by Altmetric.com, both descriptive statistics and t test result show significant difference between number of posts (NP) and number of unique users (NUU). For several altmetrics indicators, NP has moderate to low correlation with NUU. User category is found to have huge impact on altmetrics count. Analysis of twitter user category shows the general tweet distribution is strongly influenced by the public user. Tweets from research user are more correlated with citations than any other user categories. Moreover, disciplinary difference exists for different user categories.
KeywordsAltmetrics Count type User category Correlation analysis Twitter
Thank Altmetric.com for providing the dataset and anonymous reviewers for their useful comments. The research is supported by China Scholarship Council (NO: 201506270024) and National Social Science Foundation of China (CTQ023).
- Altmetric LLP. (2016). How are Twitter demographics determined? https://help.altmetric.com/support/solutions/articles/6000060978-how-are-twitter-demographics.
- Andersen, J. P., & Haustein, S. (2015). Influence of study type on Twitter activity for medical research papers. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00154.
- Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2015). t factor: A metric for measuring impact on Twitter. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02179.
- Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., & Costas, R. (2015). When is an article actually published? An analysis of online availability, publication, and indexation dates. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.00796.
- Haustein, S., & Costas, R. (2015). Identifying Twitter audiences: Who is tweeting about scientific papers? Retrieved from https://www.asist.org/SIG/SIGMET/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/sigmet2015_paper_11.pdf.
- Ke, Q., Ahn, Y. Y., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.06229.
- Maleki, A. (2016). Do tweets indicate scholarly communication? Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/altmetrics16_paper_8.pdf.
- Mamtora, J., & Haddow, G. (2015). From bibliometrics to altmetrics: An Australian study. Presented at IFLA academic and research libraries satellite conference. In The Quest for deeper meaning of research support, Cape Town, South Africa, 13–14 August, 2015.Google Scholar
- NISO. (2016). Altmetrics definitions and use cases. Retrieved from http://www.niso.org/topics/tl/altmetrics_initiative/.
- Song, L. P., Chen, W., & He, Y. (2015). Empirical study on article level scientific evaluation—take PLoS ONE as example. Library Work and Study, 233(7), 85–88.Google Scholar
- Yu, H. Q., Hemminger, B. M., Qiu, J. P., & Xiao, T. T. (2016). Study on characteristics of sina weibo altmetrics. Journal of Library Science in China, 42(4), 20–36.Google Scholar