Advertisement

Can Twitter increase the visibility of Chinese publications?

Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether diffusion through social media can help to improve the international visibility of Chinese papers and thus increase their citation impact. After analysing 160,233 Chinese papers published in 2012, as well as the number of tweets and citations received, the results indicate that tweeted Chinese papers published in the same year and journal received around 15% more citations than Chinese papers not mentioned on Twitter. The citation advantage of tweeted Chinese papers is also found within various disciplines and by the different citing countries.

Keywords

Twitter Citation analysis China Altmetrics Scientific impact 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper is an extended version of the paper presented at the ISSI2017 Conference. This study is supported by iFellows Doctoral Scholarship (11400674) provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the Doctoral Research Scholarship (199349) provided by the Fonds de recherche société et culture Québec (FRQSC).

References

  1. Alperin, J. P. (2014). South America: Citation databases omit local journals. Nature, 511(7508), 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alperin, J. P. (2015). The public impact of Latin America’s approach to open access. Doctoral dissertation. https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:jr256tk1194/AlperinDissertationFinalPublicImpact-augmented.pdf.
  3. Andersen, J. P., & Haustein, S. (2015). Bootstrapping to evaluate accuracy of citation-based journal indicators. In The 15th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics, Istanbul, Turkey, 2015. ISSI.Google Scholar
  4. Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 286–291.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015a). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015b). The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media: Large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 260–288.  https://doi.org/10.1108/Ajim-12-2014-0173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cress, P. E. (2014). Using altmetrics and social media to supplement impact factor: Maximizing your article’s academic and societal impact. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 34(7), 1123–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Ding, Z., Zheng, X., & Wu, X. (2012). Strategies for expanding the international influences of academic journals: An example from Chinese pharmaceutical journals. Serials Review, 38(2), 80–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2012.Google Scholar
  11. Fausto, S., Machado, F. A., Bento, L. F. J., Iamarino, A., Nahas, T. R., & Munger, D. S. (2012). Research blogging: Indexing and registering the change in science 2.0. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e50109.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fu, H., & Ho, Y. (2013). Comparison of independent research of China’s top universities using bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 96(1), 259–276.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0912-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0120495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haustein, S., Larivière, V., Thelwall, M., Amyot, D., & Peters, I. (2014). Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ? IT-Information Technology, 56(5), 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hennemann, S., Wang, T., & Liefner, I. (2011). Measuring regional science networks in China: A comparison of international and domestic bibliographic data sources. Scientometrics, 88(2), 535–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ISTIC. (2010). Statistical data of Chinese S&T papers 2010. Beijing: ISTIC.Google Scholar
  17. ISTIC. (2017). Statistical data of Chinese S&T papers 2017. Beijing: ISTIC.Google Scholar
  18. Leydesdorff, L., & Zhou, P. (2005). Are the contributions of China and Korea upsetting the world system of science? Scientometrics, 63(3), 617–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liang, L. (2003). Evaluating China’s research performance: How do SCI and Chinese indexes compare? Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 28(1), 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maleki, A. (2014). Twitter users in science tweets linking to articles: The case of web of science articles with Iranian authors. In 2014: American Society for Information Science and Technology, presented at SIG/MET post conference workshop, Seattle, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moed, H. (2002). Measuring China’s research performance using the Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 53(3), 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Niu, F., & Qiu, J. (2014). Network structure, distribution and the growth of Chinese international research collaboration. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1221–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Priem, J. (2014). Altmetrics. In B. Cronin & C. R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/. Accessed 14 March 2017.
  27. Qiu, J. P., Yang, R., & Zhao, R. (2010). Competition and excellence: Ranking of world-class universities 2009 and advance of Chinese universities. Journal of Library and Information Studies, 8(2), 11–27.Google Scholar
  28. Ren, S., & Liang, P. (1999). The challenge for Chinese scientific journals. Science, 286(5445), 1683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ren, S., & Rousseau, R. (2002). International visibility of Chinese scientific journals. Scientometrics, 53(3), 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Robinson-Garcia, N., Torres-Salinas, D., Zahedi, Z., & Costas, R. (2014). New data, new possibilities: Exploring the insides of Altmetric.com. El Profesional de la información, 23(4), 359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shu, F., & Haustein, S. (2017). On the citation advantage of tweeted papers at the journal level. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 366–372.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shu, F., & Lariviere, V. (2015). Chinese-language articles are biased in citations. Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 526–528.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thelwall, M. (2013). Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels. Scientometrics, 97(2), 383–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thelwall, M. (2016). The precision of the arithmetic mean, geometric mean and percentiles for citation data: An experimental simulation modelling approach. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 110–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013a). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thelwall, M., Tsou, A., Weingart, S., Holmberg, K., & Haustein, S. (2013b). Tweeting links to academic articles. Cybermetrics: International Journal of Scientometrics, Informetrics and Bibliometrics, 17(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  38. Vainio, J., & Holmberg, K. (2017). Highly tweeted science articles: Who tweets them? An analysis of Twitter user profile descriptions. Scientometrics, 112(1), 345–366.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2368-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E. C. M., Tijssen, R. J. W., van Eck, N. J., et al. (2012). The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2419–2432.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang, S., Wang, H., & Weldon, P. (2007). Bibliometric analysis of English-language academic journals of China and their internationalization. Scientometrics, 73(3), 331–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang, S., & Weldon, P. R. (2006). Chinese academic journals: Quality, issues and solutions. Learned publishing: Journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, 19(2), 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang, W., Wu, Y., & Pan, Y. (2014). An investigation of collaborations between top Chinese universities: A new quantitative approach. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1535–1545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wu, Y., Pan, Y., Zhang, Y., Ma, Z., Pang, J., Guo, H., et al. (2004). China scientific and technical papers and citations (CSTPC): History, impact and outlook. Scientometrics, 60(3), 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhou, P., & Glänzel, W. (2010). In-depth analysis on Chinas international cooperation in science. Scientometrics, 82(3), 597–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2007). A comparison between the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database and the Science Citation Index in terms of journal hierarchies and interjournal citation relations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2), 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhu, J., Hassan, S.-U., Mirza, H. T., & Xie, Q. (2014). Measuring recent research performance for Chinese universities using bibliometric methods (English). Scientometrics, 101(1), 429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information StudiesMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Information ManagementEast China Normal UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.School of Information StudiesUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations