Altmetrics is an emerging topic that has generated much interest. Most of the studies, however, have focused on the comparison of altemetric indicators with traditional citation metrics and few have explored the factors influencing altmetric performance. This study investigates the dissemination pattern of scientific articles on social medial, and is particularly focused on highly tweeted articles and highly cited articles. Based on bibliometric and altmetric data collected for over 40,000 articles in the field of biology, we found that the timing of tweets and the type of Twitter accounts affect the amount of attention that a scientific publication receives on social media. Articles with a large number of tweets tend to be the ones receiving immediate social media exposure and are often tweeted by journal associated organization accounts or other individual accounts with a large number of followers. By contrast, highly cited articles in general are neither tweeted timely nor promoted by their respective journal accounts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Member of the public: someone who does not link to scholarly literature and does not fit any of the categories below.
Scientist: someone who is familiar with the literature.
Practitioner: a clinician or researcher who is working in clinical science.
Science communicator: someone who links frequently to scientific articles from a variety of different journals or publishers.
Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the social web. arXiv:1205.5611.
Bavelas, A. (1948). A mathematical model for group structures. Human Organization, 7(3), 16–30.
Bavelas, A. (1950). Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22(6), 723–730.
Bernal, J. D. (1939). The social function of science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Bornmann, L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 217–233.
Bornmann, L. (2014a). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 895–903.
Bornmann, L. (2014b). Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 647–648.
Bornmann, L. (2014c). Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 935–950.
Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2017). Does evaluative scientometrics lose its main focus on scientific quality by the new orientation towards societal impact? Scientometrics, 110(2), 937–943.
Bornmann, L., Schier, H., Marx, W., & Daniel, H.-D. (2012). What factors determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality? Journal of Informetrics, 6(1), 11–18.
Callaham, M., Wears, R. L., & Weber, E. (2002). Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. JAMA, 287(21), 2847–2850.
Chapa, J., Haq, Z., & Cifu, A. S. (2017). Comparative analysis of the factors associated with citation and media coverage of clinical research. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1271–1283.
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.
Fenner, M. (2014). Altmetrics and other novel measures for scientific impact. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing (pp. 179–189). Heidelberg: Springer.
Frank, C., & Nason, E. (2009). Health research: Measuring the social, health and economic benefits. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 180(5), 528–534.
Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort = double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50(2), 199–214.
Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., & Larivière, V. (2014). Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 656–669.
HEFCE. (2011). Decisions onassessing research impact. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
Leavitt, H. J. (1951). Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46(1), 38–50.
Massey, W. E. (1989). Science education in the United States: What the scientific community can do. Science, 245(4921), 915–921.
Moed, H. F. (2016). Altmetrics as traces of the computerization of the research process. In C. R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication. A Festschrift in honor of Blaise Cronin (pp. 360–371). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels. Scientometrics, 97(2), 383–395.
Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). A new reference standard for citation analysis in chemistry and related fields based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts. Scientometrics, 78(2), 219–229.
Neylon, C., & Wu, S. (2009). Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biology, 7(11), e1000242.
Ortega, J. L. (2016). To be or not to be on twitter, and its relationship with the tweeting and citation of research papers. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1353–1364.
Peters, H. P. F., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1994). On determinants of citation scores: A case study in chemical engineering. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(1), 39–49.
Petrovic, S., Osborne, M., McCreadie, R., Macdonald, C., Ounis, I., & Shrimpton, L. (2013). Can twitter replace newswire for breaking news? In Proceedings of the seventh international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (pp. 713–716).
Priem, J., Groth, P., & Taraborelli, D. (2012a). The altmetrics collection. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e48753.
Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv:1203.4745.
Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved 10 Mar 2017 from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto.
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.
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.
Shu, F., Lou, W., & Haustein, S. (2018). Can Twitter increase the visibility of Chinese publications? Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2732-8.
Subašic, I., & Berendt, B. (2011). Peddling or creating? Investigating the role of twitter in news reporting. In P. Clough, C. Foley, C. Gurrin, G. Jones, W. Kraaij, H. Lee, & V. Murdock (Eds.), Advances in information retrieval: 33rd European Conference on IR Research (Vol. 6611, pp. 207–213). Heidelberg: Springer.
Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131–1143.
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.
Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), 876–889.
Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (2015). Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(8), 1962–1972.
Wang, J., & Shapira, P. (2015). Is there a relationship between research sponsorship and publication impact? An analysis of funding acknowledgments in nanotechnology papers. PLoS ONE, 10(2), e0117727. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117727.
Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control: Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Utrecht: SURFfoundation.
Xia, F., Su, X., Wang, W., Zhang, C., Ning, Z., & Ivan, L. (2016). Bibliographic analysis of nature based on Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data. PLoS ONE, 11(12), e0165997.
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.
Zhao, W. X., Jiang, J., Weng, J., He, J., Lim, E. P., Yan, H., & Li, X. (2011). Comparing twitter and traditional media using topic models. In European conference on information retrieval. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 6611, pp. 338–349).
Ziman, J. (1991). Public understanding of science. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16(1), 99–105.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, L., Wang, J. Why highly cited articles are not highly tweeted? A biology case. Scientometrics 117, 495–509 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2876-6
- Twitter users
- Timing of tweet