Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 117, Issue 1, pp 603–613 | Cite as

An altmetric investigation of the online visibility of South Korea-based scientific journals

  • Kim Holmberg
  • Han Woo Park
Article

Abstract

The scientific journal is an important part of scholarly communication and for a long time it has functioned both as the sole dissemination channel of research findings and as an important indicator of research quality. Recently altmetrics have been investigated for their applicability for research assessment. The potential of and hope attached to altmetrics is that they could function as complements to more traditional metrics and possibly reflect some aspects of new forms of online scholarly communication. This research will investigate aggregation of altmetrics at journal-level and the online presence and visibility of selected Korea-based journals. Based on our findings we can conclude that Open Access availability is a clear driver for higher online attention for Korean scientific journals, however, this attention is also heavily influenced by the popularity of a few articles that have attracted significant online attention. Because of the influence some popular articles can have on the aggregated journal-level attention, journal-level altmetrics do not appear to be reliable nor useful indicators of the performance of scientific journals.

Keywords

Altmetrics Scientific journals South Korea Online attention 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the assistance from Hyo-Chan Park and Young-Suk Paek during data collection.

References

  1. Alhoori, H., Choudhury, S., Kanan, T., Fox, E., Furuta, R., & Giles, L. C. (2015). On the relationship between open access and altmetrics. In: The proceedings of the iconference 2015. Retrieved from 2 May 2018. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/73451.
  2. Cho, J. (2016). A comparative study of the impact of Korean research articles in four academic fields using altmetrics. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 18(1), 38–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Delli, K., Livas, C., Spijkervet, F. K. L., & Vissink, A. (2017). Measuring the social impact of dental research: An insight into the most influential articles on the web. Oral Diseases, 23, 1155–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Didegah, F., Bowman, T. D., & Holmberg, K. (2018). On the differences between citations and altmetrics: An investigation of factors driving altmetrics vs. citations for Finnish articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23934.Google Scholar
  5. Harnad, S., & Brody, T. (2004). Comparing the impact of open access vs. non OA articles in the same journals. D-Lib Magazine, 10(6). Retrieved from May 2, 2018. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june04/harnad/06harnad.html.
  6. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548). Retrieved from October 10, 2017. http://www.nature.com/news/bibliometrics-the-leiden-manifesto-for-research-metrics-1.17351.
  8. Houghton, J., & Sheehan, P. (2009). Estimating the potential impacts of open access to research findings. Economic Analysis & Policy, 39(1), 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jeon, J., & Kim, S. Y. (2018). Is the gap widening among universities? On research output inequality and its measurement in the Korean higher education system. Quality & Quantity, 52(2), 589–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kousha, K., & Abdoli, M. (2010). The citation impact of open access agricultural research: A comparison between OA and non-OA publications. Online Information Review, 34(5), 772–785.  https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521011084618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leonelli, S. (2017). MLE on open science—Incentives and rewards to engage in open science activities (Thematic report no. 3). Brussels, European Commission, 2017. Retrieved from May 4, 2018. https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/library/mle-open-science-%E2%80%93-altmetrics-and-rewards-incentives-and-rewards-engage-open-science.
  12. Loach, T. V., & Evans, T. S. (2015). Ranking journals using altmetrics. In: The proceedings of the 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference held in Istanbul on 30th June to 2nd July 2015.Google Scholar
  13. Mayol, J., & Dziakova, J. (2017). Value of social media in advancing surgical research. British Journal of Surgery, 104(13), 1753–1755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. O’Carroll, C., et al. (2017). Evaluation of research careers fully acknowledging open science practices. Brussels, European Commission, 2017. Retrieved from May 4, 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm?pg=rewards_wg.
  15. O’Connor, E. M., Nason, G. J., O’Kelly, F., Manecksha, R. P., & Loeb, S. (2017). Newsworthiness vs scientific impact: are the most highly cited urology papers the most widely disseminated in the media? BJU International, 120, 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Park, H. W., Yoon, J. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2016). The normalization of Co-authorship networks in the bibliometric evaluation: The government stimulation programs of China and Korea. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1017–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto, 26 October 2010. Retrieved from May 4, 2018. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto.
  18. Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Lariviére, V., & Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2037–2062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Thelwall, M. (2017). Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields? Scientometrics, 113, 1721–1731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vanclay, J. (2012). Impact factor: Outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? Scientometrics, 92(2), 211–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wang, J., Alotaibi, N. M., Ibrahim, G. M., Kulkarni, A. V., & Lozano, A. M. (2017). The spectrum of altmetrics in neurosurgery: The top 100 “trending” articles in neurosurgical journals. World Neurosurgery, 103, 883–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang, X., Liu, C., Mao, W., & Fang, Z. (2015). The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics, 103, 555–564.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1547-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilsdon, J., et al. (2015). The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. London: Sage.  https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilsdon, J., et al. (2017). Next-generation metrics: Responsible metrics and evaluation for open science. Report of the European Commission Expert Group on Altmetrics. Brussels, European Commission, March 2017. Retrieved from May 4, 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/report.pdf.
  26. Yang, H., & Jung, W. S. (2016). Assessing knowledge structures for public research institutes. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 15(1), 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Unit for the Sociology of EducationUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  2. 2.Department of Media and Communication, Interdisciplinary Program of Digital Convergence Business, Cyber Emotions Research CenterYeungNam UniversityGyeongsanSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations