Scientometrics

, Volume 109, Issue 2, pp 1117–1166 | Cite as

Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media

  • Mojisola Erdt
  • Aarthy Nagarajan
  • Sei-Ching Joanna Sin
  • Yin-Leng Theng
Article

Abstract

Altmetrics is an emergent research area whereby social media is applied as a source of metrics to assess scholarly impact. In the last few years, the interest in altmetrics has grown, giving rise to many questions regarding their potential benefits and challenges. This paper aims to address some of these questions. First, we provide an overview of the altmetrics landscape, comparing tool features, social media data sources, and social media events provided by altmetric aggregators. Second, we conduct a systematic review of the altmetrics literature. A total of 172 articles were analysed, revealing a steady rise in altmetrics research since 2011. Third, we analyse the results of over 80 studies from the altmetrics literature on two major research topics: cross-metric validation and coverage of altmetrics. An aggregated percentage coverage across studies on 11 data sources shows that Mendeley has the highest coverage of about 59 % across 15 studies. A meta-analysis across more than 40 cross-metric validation studies shows overall a weak correlation (ranging from 0.08 to 0.5) between altmetrics and citation counts, confirming that altmetrics do indeed measure a different kind of research impact, thus acting as a complement rather than a substitute to traditional metrics. Finally, we highlight open challenges and issues facing altmetrics and discuss future research areas.

Keywords

Altmetrics Literature review Social media Meta-analysis 

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. Allen, H. G., Stanton, T. R., Di Pietro, F., & Moseley, G. L. (2013). Social media release increases dissemination of original articles in the clinical pain sciences. PLoS One, 8(7), e68914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alperin, J. P. (2015a). Geographic variation in social media metrics: An analysis of Latin American journal articles. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 289–304.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alperin, J. P. (2015b). Moving beyond counts: A method for surveying Twitter users. http://altmetrics.org/altmetrics15/alperin/. Accessed 18 Feb 2016.
  5. Andersen, J. P., & Haustein, S. (2015). Influence of study type on Twitter activity for medical research papers. In Proceedings of the 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference.Google Scholar
  6. Araújo, R. F., Murakami, T. R., De Lara, J. L., & Fausto, S. (2015). Does the global south have altmetrics? Analyzing a Brazilian LIS journal. In Proceedings of the 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference, (pp. 111–112).Google Scholar
  7. Bar-Ilan, J. (2012). JASIST@mendeley. In ACM web science conference 2012 workshop.Google Scholar
  8. Bar-Ilan, J. (2014). Astrophysics publications on arXiv, Scopus and Mendeley: a case study. Scientometrics, 100(1), 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the social Web. arXiv preprint. arXiv:1205.5611.
  10. Bornmann, L. (2014a). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics, 103(3), 1123–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bornmann, L. (2014b). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 895–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bornmann, L. (2014c). Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from atmetric and F1000Prime. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 935–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bornmann, L. (2015a). Interrater reliability and convergent validity of F1000Prime peer review. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(12), 2415–2426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bornmann, L. (2015b). Letter to the editor: On the conceptualisation and theorisation of the impact caused by publications. Scientometrics, 103(3), 1145–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bornmann, L. (2015c). Usefulness of altmetrics for measuring the broader impact of research. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 305–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2015). Which people use which scientific papers? An evaluation of data from F1000 and Mendeley. Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 477–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). Does quality and content matter for citedness? A comparison with para-textual factors and over time. Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 419–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2015). Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts? Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 408–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bowman, T. D. (2015). Tweet or publish: A comparison of 395 professors on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Cabezas-Clavijo, Á., Robinson-García, N., Torres-Salinas, D., Jiménez-Contreras, E., Mikulka, T., Gumpenberger, C., Wernisch, A., & Gorraiz, J. (2013). Most borrowed is most cited? Library loan statistics as a proxy for monograph selection in citation indexes. In Proceedings of the 14th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference (Vol. 2, pp. 1237–1252).Google Scholar
  23. Chamberlain, S. (2013). Consuming article-level metrics: Observations and lessons. Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chen, K., Tang, M., Wang, C., & Hsiang, J. (2015). Exploring alternative metrics of scholarly performance in the social sciences and humanities in Taiwan. Scientometrics, 102(1), 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Colledge, L. (2014). Snowball metrics recipe book, 2nd ed. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Snowball Metrics program partners.Google Scholar
  26. Costas, R., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2012). Approaching the “reward triangle”: General analysis of the presence of funding acknowledgments and “peer interactive communication” in scientific publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1647–1661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015). 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
  28. Cronin, B. (2013). The evolving indicator space (iSpace). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(8), 1523–1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Davis, B., Hulpuş, I., Taylor, M., & Hayes, C. (2015). Challenges and opportunities for detecting and measuring diffusion of scientific impact across heterogeneous altmetric sources. http://altmetrics.org/altmetrics15/davis/. Accessed 18 Feb 2016.
  30. De Winter, J. (2015). The relationship between tweets, citations, and article views for PLOS One articles. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1773–1779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Edelman, B., Larkin, I., et al. (2009). Demographics, career concerns or social comparison: Who Games SSRN download counts? Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  32. Eyre-Walker, A., & Stoletzki, N. (2013). The assessment of science: The relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations. PLoS Biol, 11(10), e1001675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Eysenbach, G. (2012). 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
  34. Fairclough, R., & Thelwall, M. (2015). National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 845–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fenner, M. (2013). What can article-level metrics do for you? PLoS Biol, 11(10), e1001687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. García, N. R., Salinas, D. T., Zahedi, Z., & Costas, R. (2014). New data, new possibilities: exploring the insides of Altmetric.com. El profesional de la información, 23(4), 359–366.Google Scholar
  38. Glänzel, W., & Gorraiz, J. (2015). Usage metrics versus altmetrics: Confusing terminology? Scientometrics, 3(102), 2161–2164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gordon, G., Lin, J., Cave, R., & Dandrea, R. (2015). The question of data integrity in article-level metrics. PLoS Biol, 13(8), e1002161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Haak, L. L., Fenner, M., Paglione, L., Pentz, E., & Ratner, H. (2012). ORCID: A system to uniquely identify researchers. Learned Publishing, 25(4), 259–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hammarfelt, B. (2013). An examination of the possibilities that altmetric methods offer in the case of the humanities. In Proceedings of the 14th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference, (Vol. 1, pp. 720–727).Google Scholar
  42. Hammarfelt, B. (2014). Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1419–1430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Haunschild, R., Stefaner, M., & Bornmann, L. (2015). Who publishes, reads, and cites papers? An analysis of country information. In Proceedings of the 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference.Google Scholar
  44. Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2014). A multidimensional analysis of Aslib proceedings-using everything but the impact factor. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(4), 358–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015). The use of bibliometrics for assessing research: possibilities, limitations and adverse effects. In Incentives and performance, Springer, pp. 121–139.Google Scholar
  46. Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., Holmberg, K ., Tsou, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2015a). Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot” accounts on Twitter. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(1), 232–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015b). Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS One, 10(3), e0120495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., & Costas, R. (2016). Interpreting ‘Altmetrics’: Viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories. In Cassidy R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication. A Festschrift in honor of Blaise Cronin (pp. 372–406). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  49. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2013). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. In Proceedings of the 14th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference (Vol. 1, pp. 468–483).Google Scholar
  50. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2014a). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1145–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., & Larivière, V. (2014b). Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 656–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Haustein, S., & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 446–457.Google Scholar
  53. Henning, V. (2010). The top 10 journal articles published in 2009 by readership on Mendeley. Mendeley Blog. http://www.mendeley.com/blog/academic-features/the-top-10-journalarticles-published-in-2009-by-readership-on-mendeley. Accessed 18 Feb 2016.
  54. Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C., & Meckel, M. (2015). A relational altmetric? Network centrality on ResearchGate as an indicator of scientific impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 765–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Holmberg, K. (2015). Online Attention of Universities in Finland: Are the bigger universities bigger online too? In Proceedings of the 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference.Google Scholar
  56. Holmberg, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1027–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hopkins, W. G. (2004). An introduction to meta-analysis. Sportscience, 8, 20–24.Google Scholar
  58. Howison, J., & Bullard, J. (2015). Software in the scientific literature: Problems with seeing, finding, and using software mentioned in the biology literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (in press).Google Scholar
  59. Jiang, J., He, D., & Ni, C. (2013). The correlations between article citation and references’ impact measures: What can we learn? In Proceedings of the American society for information science and technology,(Vol. 50, pp. 1–4). Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company.Google Scholar
  60. Knoth, P., & Herrmannova, D. (2014). Towards semantometrics: A new semantic similarity based measure for assessing a research publication’s contribution. D-Lib Magazine, 20(11), 8.Google Scholar
  61. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2015a). Alternative metrics for book impact assessment: Can choice reviews be a useful source? In Proceedings of the 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference.Google Scholar
  62. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2015b). An automatic method for assessing the teaching impact of books from online academic syllabi. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (in press).Google Scholar
  63. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2015c). Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(3), 566–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kraker, P., Schlögl, C., Jack, K., & Lindstaedt, S. (2015). Visualization of co-readership patterns from an online reference management system. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kumar, S., & Mishra, A. K. (2015). Bibliometrics to altmetrics and its impact on social media. International Journal of Scientific and Innovative Research Studies, 3(3), 56–65.Google Scholar
  66. Kurtz, M. J., & Henneken, E. A. (2014). Finding and recommending scholarly articles. Beyond bibliometrics: harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact, pp. 243–259.Google Scholar
  67. Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2011). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Li, X., Thelwall, M., & (uk, W. W. L. (2012). F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on science and technology indicators, pp. 451–551.Google Scholar
  69. Lin, J. (2012). A case study in anti-gaming mechanisms for altmetrics: PLoS ALMs and datatrust. http://altmetrics.org/altmetrics12/lin. Accessed 18 Feb 2016.
  70. Lin, J., & Fenner, M. (2013a). Altmetrics in evolution: defining and redefining the ontology of article-level metrics. Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2), 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lin, J., & Fenner, M. (2013b). The many faces of article-level metrics. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(4), 27–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Liu, C. L., Xu, Y. Q., Wu, H., Chen, S. S., & Guo, J. J. (2013). Correlation and interaction visualization of altmetric indicators extracted from scholarly social network activities: dimensions and structure. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(11), e259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Liu, J., & Adie, E. (2013). Five challenges in altmetrics: A toolmaker’s perspective. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(4), 31–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Loach, T. V., & Evans, T. S. (2015). Ranking journals using altmetrics. In Proceedings of the 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference.Google Scholar
  75. Maflahi, N., & Thelwall, M. (2015). When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(1), 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Maleki, A. (2015a). Mendeley readership impact of academic articles of Iran. In Proceedings of the 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference.Google Scholar
  77. Maleki, A. (2015b). PubMed and ArXiv vs. Gold open access: Citation, Mendeley, and Twitter uptake of academic articles of Iran. In Proceedings of the 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference.Google Scholar
  78. Mas-Bleda, A., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., & Aguillo, I. F. (2014). Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web? Scientometrics, 101(1), 337–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Mayr, P., & Scharnhorst, A. (2015). Scientometrics and information retrieval: weak-links revitalized. Scientometrics, 102(3), 2193–2199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels. Scientometrics, 97(2), 383–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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
  82. Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015a). Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(9), 1832–1846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015b). Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(5), 1198–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. NISO (2014). NISO alternative metrics (altmetrics) initiative phase 1 white paper. http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/13809/Altmetrics_project_phase1_white_paper.pdf. Accessed 18 Feb 2016.
  85. Orduña-Malea, E., Ortega, J. L., & Aguillo, I. F. (2014). Influence of language and file type on the web visibility of top European universities. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(1), 96–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Ortega, J. L. (2015a). How is an academic social site populated? A demographic study of Google Scholar citations population. Scientometrics, 104(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Ortega, J. L. (2015b). Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC’s members. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Paul-Hus, A., Sugimoto, C. R., Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015). Is there a gender gap in social media metrics? In Proceedings of the 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference, pp. 37–45.Google Scholar
  89. Peters, I., Beutelspacher, L., Maghferat, P., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Scientific bloggers under the altmetric microscope. In Proceedings of the American society for information science and technology (Vol. 49, pp. 1–4) Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company.Google Scholar
  90. Peters, I., Jobmann, A., Hoffmann, C. P., Künne, S., Schmitz, J., & Wollnik-Korn, G. (2014). Altmetrics for large, multidisciplinary research groups: Comparison of current tools. Bibliometrie-Praxis und Forschung, 3(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  91. Peters, I., Kraker, P., Lex, E., Gumpenberger, C., & Gorraiz, J. (2015). Research data explored: Citations versus altmetrics. in Proceedings of the 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference.Google Scholar
  92. Piwowar, H. (2013). Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature, 493(7431), 159–159.Google Scholar
  93. Piwowar, H., & Priem, J. (2013). The power of altmetrics on a CV. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(4), 10–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Priem, J. (2014). Altmetrics. Beyond Bibliometrics: harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact, pp. 263–287.Google Scholar
  95. Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. M. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15(7).Google Scholar
  96. Priem, J., Parra, C., Piwowar, H., & Waagmeester, A. (2012a). Uncovering impacts: CitedIn and total-impact, two new tools for gathering altmetrics. Paper presented at the iConference 2012.Google Scholar
  97. Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012b). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv preprint. arXiv:1203.4745
  98. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto. Accessed 18 Feb 2016.
  99. Ringelhan, S., Wollersheim, J., & Welpe, I. M. (2015). I like, I cite? Do Facebook likes predict the impact of scientific work? PLoS One, 10(8), e0134389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Schlögl, C., Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., Jack, K., & Kraker, P. (2014). Comparison of downloads, citations and readership data for two information systems journals. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1113–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 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
  102. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2015). How is research blogged? A content analysis approach. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(6), 1136–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Sotudeh, H., Mazarei, Z., & Mirzabeigi, M. (2015). CiteULike bookmarks are correlated to citations at journal and author levels in library and information science. Scientometrics, 105(3), 2237–2248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Not all international collaboration is beneficial: The Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(8), 1849–1857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Tang, J., Zhang, J., Yao, L., Li, J., Zhang, L., & Su, Z. (2008). Arnetminer: extraction and mining of academic social networks. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, ACM, pp. 990–998.Google Scholar
  107. Tang, M.-c., Wang, C.-m., Chen, K.-h., & Hsiang, J. (2012). Exploring alternative cyberbibliometrics for evaluation of scholarly performance in the social sciences and humanities in Taiwan. In Proceedings of the American society for information science and technology, (Vol. 49, pp. 1–1). Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company.Google Scholar
  108. Taylor, M. (2013). Exploring the boundaries: How altmetrics can expand our vision of scholarly communication and social impact. Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2), 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Thelwall, M. (2010). Introduction to LexiURL searcher: A research tool for social scientists. Statistical cybermetrics research group, University of Wolverhampton. http://lexiurl.wlv.ac.uk. Accessed 18 Feb 2016
  110. Thelwall, M. (2012a). Introduction to webometric analyst 2.0: A research tool for social scientists. Statistical cybermetrics research group, University of Wolverhampton. http://webometrics.wlv.ac.uk. Accessed 18 Feb 2016.
  111. Thelwall, M. (2012b). Journal impact evaluation: A webometric perspective. Scientometrics, 92(2), 429–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Thelwall, M., & Fairclough, R. (2015a). Geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cited articles. Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Thelwall, M., & Fairclough, R. (2015b). The influence of time and discipline on the magnitude of correlations between citation counts and quality scores. Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 529–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2014). Academia.edu: Social network or academic network? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 721–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), 876–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Thelwall, M., & Maflahi, N. (2015a). Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? An analysis of Mendeley readers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(6), 1124–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Thelwall, M., & Maflahi, N. (2015b). Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 960–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Thelwall, M., & Sud, P. (2015). Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (in press).Google Scholar
  120. Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (2015a). Does research with statistics have more impact? The citation rank advantage of structural equation modeling. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(5), 1233–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (2015b). Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (in press).Google Scholar
  122. Torres-Salinas, D., & Milanés-Guisado, Y. (2014). Presencia en redes sociales y altmétricas de los principales autores de la revista “El Profesional de la Información”. El profesional de la información, 23(3),Google Scholar
  123. Uren, V., & Dadzie, A.-S. (2015). Public science communication on Twitter: A visual analytic approach. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Waltman, L., & Costas, R. (2014). F1000 recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation: A comparison with citations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 433–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Weller, K. (2015). Social media and altmetrics: An overview of current alternative approaches to measuring scholarly impact. In Incentives and Performance, (pp. 261–276). Springer.Google Scholar
  126. Weller, K., & Peters, I. (2012). Citations in Web 2.0. Science and the Internet, (pp. 209–222).Google Scholar
  127. Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control: tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. SURFfoundation Utrecht.Google Scholar
  128. Yan, K.-K., & Gerstein, M. (2011). The spread of scientific information: Insights from the web usage statistics in PLoS article-level metrics. PLoS One, 6(5), 1–7.Google Scholar
  129. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014a). 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
  130. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2015a). Do Mendeley readership counts help to filter highly cited WoS publications better than average citation impact of journals (JCS)? In Proceedings of the 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference.Google Scholar
  131. Zahedi, Z., Fenner, M., & Costas, R. (2014b). How consistent are altmetrics providers? Study of 1000 PLoS One publications using the PLoS ALM, Mendeley and Altmetric.com APIs. In altmetrics 14. Workshop at the web science conference, Bloomington, USA.Google Scholar
  132. Zahedi, Z., Fenner, M., & Costas, R. (2015b). Consistency among altmetrics data provider/aggregators: what are the challenges? In altmetrics15: 5 years in, what do we know? The 2015 altmetrics workshop, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  133. Zhou, Q., & Zhang, C. (2015). Can book reviews be used to evaluate books’ influence? In Proceedings of the 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference.Google Scholar
  134. Zuccala, A. A., Verleysen, F. T., Cornacchia, R., & Engels, T. C. (2015). Altmetrics for the humanities: Comparing Goodreads reader ratings with citations to history books. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 320–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Healthy and Sustainable CitiesNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Nanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations