, Volume 120, Issue 3, pp 1461–1473 | Cite as

Comparing capture, usage and citation indicators: an altmetric analysis of journal papers in chemistry disciplines

  • Pei-Shan Chi
  • Juan Gorraiz
  • Wolfgang GlänzelEmail author


In this paper we extend the perspective of the scholarly impact from the traditional citations to other forms of scientific communication among scholars in the mirror of the PlumX and Web of Science (WoS) data. There are in total eight indicators out of three categories including Captures, Citations, and Usage analysed in the study. The results of this study shows that Captures and Usage indicators measure very different aspects of research impact, although both of them show some similarity from the perspective of citations. The Characteristic Scores and Scales method was applied to different types of altmetric indicators for the first time and its robustness of the method was proved again.


Altmetrics PlumX metrics WoS usage Citations Characteristic scores and scales 



This paper is an extended version of a previous work presented at the 23rd STI Conference in Leiden, The Netherlands (Chi et al. 2018). Altmetrics data for the two chemistry disciplines was provided by courtesy of Plum Analytics. The authors thank Christina Lohr, Stephanie Faulkner and Tina Moir from Elsevier for granted trial access to PlumX. WoS Citation data were sourced from Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Core Collection.


  1. Bollen, J., & Van de Sompel, H. (2008). Usage impact factor: The effects of sample characteristics on usage-based impact metrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(1), 136–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bornmann, L. (2015). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics, 103(3), 1123–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chi, P. S., & Glänzel, W. (2017). An empirical investigation of the associations among usage, scientific collaboration and citation impact. Scientometrics, 112(1), 403–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chi, P. S., Gorraiz, J., & Glänzel, W. (2018). Comparisons of altmetric, usage and citation indicators in chemistry disciplines. In R. Costas, T. Franssen, & A. Yegros-Yegros (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on science and technology indicators, Leiden (pp. 174–183).Google Scholar
  5. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2014). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to cybermetrics. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
  7. Glänzel, W., & Heeffer, S. (2014). Cross-national preferences and similarities in downloads and citations of scientific articles: A pilot study. In: E. Noyons (Ed.), Context counts: Pathways to master big and little data. Proceedings of the STI Conference 2014, (pp. 207–215). Leiden University.Google Scholar
  8. Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., & Chi, P. S. (2016). The challenges to expand bibliometric studies from periodical literature to monographic literature with a new data source: the book citation index. Scientometrics, 109(3), 2165–2179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., & Debackere, K. (2014). The application of citation-based performance classes to the disciplinary and multidisciplinary assessment in national comparison and institutional research assessment. Scientometrics, 101(2), 939–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gorraiz J., Blahous B., & Wieland M. (2018). Monitoring the Broader Impact of the Journal Publication Output on Country Level: A Case Study for Austria. In M. Erdt, A. Sesagiri Raamkumar, E. Rasmussen & Y. L. Theng (Eds.), Altmetrics for research outputs measurement and scholarly information management. AROSIM 2018. Communications in computer and information science, Vol. 856. Springer, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  11. Gorraiz, J., & Gumpenberger, C. (2010). Going beyond citations: SERUM—A new tool provided by a network of libraries. Liber Quartely, 20(1), 81–93.Google Scholar
  12. Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., & Schloegl, C. (2014). Usage versus citation behaviours in four subject areas. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1077–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gorraiz, J., Melero-Fuentes, D., Gumpenberger, C., & Valderrama-Zurián, J. C. (2016). Availability of digital object identifiers (DOIs) in web of science and scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moed, H. F. (2017). Applied evaluative informetrics. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(8), 1627–1638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Peters, I., Kraker, P., Lex, E., Gumpenberger, C., & Gorraiz, J. (2017). Zenodo in the spotlight of old and new metrics. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. Scholar
  17. Torres-Salinas, D., Gumpenberger, C., & Gorraiz, J. (2017). PlumX as a potential tool to assess the macroscopic multidimensional impact of books. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. Scholar
  18. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014). How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1491–1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ECOOMKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Bibliometrics and Publication Strategies, Vienna University LibraryUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.ECOOM and Department of MSIKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  4. 4.Department of Science Policy and ScientometricsLibrary of the Hungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations