Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Altmetrics of South African Journals: Implications for Scholarly Impact of South African Research

  • Published:
Publishing Research Quarterly Aims and scope

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to investigate and compare the social media (SM) impact of 273 South Africa Post-Secondary Education accredited journals, which are recognised by the Department of Higher Education and Training of South Africa for purposes of financial support. We used multiple sources to extract data for the study, namely, Altmetric.com, Google Scholar (GS), Scopus (through SCImago) and the Thomson Reuters (TR) Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Data was analysed to determine South African journals’ presence in and impact on SM as well as to contrast SM visibility and impact with the citation impact in GS, JCR and Scopus. The Spearman correlation test was performed to compare the impact of the journals on SM and other sources. The results reveal that 2923 articles published in 122 of the 273 South African (SA) journals have received at least one mention in SM; the most commonly used SM platforms were Twitter and Facebook; the journals indexed in the TR’s citation indexes and Scopus performed much better, in terms of their average altmetrics, than non-TR and non-Scopus indexed journals; and there were weak to moderate relationships among different types of altmetrics and citation-based measures, thereby implying different kinds of journal impacts on SM when compared to the scholarly impact reflected in citation databases. In conclusion, South African journals’ impact on SM, just as is the case with countries with similar economies, is minimal but has shown signs of growth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Altmetric.com. About Altmetric and Altmetric Attention Score. 2016a. https://help.altmetric.com/support/solutions/articles/6000059309-about-altmetric-and-the-altmetric-attention-score. Accessed 15 Sept 2016.

  2. Alperín JP. Open access indicators: assessing growth and use of open access resources from developing regions: the Case of Latin America. In: Alperín JP, Babini D, Fishman G, editors. Open Access and Scholarly Communications Indicators in Latin America. p. 15–78. Buenos Aires: El Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO). 2014. http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/clacso/se/20140917054406/OpenAccess.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2016.

  3. Altmetric.com. How is the Altmetric Attention Score calculated? 2016b. https://help.altmetric.com/support/solutions/articles/6000060969-how-is-the-altmetric-score-calculated. Accessed 15 Sept 2016.

  4. Araújo R, Murakami T, De Lara J, Fausto S. Does the global south have altmetrics? Analyzing a Brazilian LIS journal. In: Salah AA, et al., editors. Proceedings of ISSI 2015: 15th international conf of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics. Istanbul: Bogazici University; 2015. p. 111–2.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bar-Ilan J. Which h-index?: A comparison of WoS, scopus and google scholar. Scientometrics. 2008;74(2):257–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bar-Ilan J, Haustein S, Peters I, Priem J, Shema H, Tersliesner J. Beyond citations: scholars’ visibility on the social Web. In: Archambault E, Gingras Y, Larivière V, editors. Proceedings of 17th international conference on science and technology indicators. Montréal: Science-Metrix and OST; 2012. p. 98–109.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bornmann L. Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. J Informetr. 2014;8:895–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brigham TJ. An introduction of altmetrics. Med Ref Serv Q. 2014;33(4):438–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cann A. Social media: a guide for researchers. 2011. http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/social-media-guide-researchers. Accessed 10 Mar 2016.

  10. Costas R, Zahedi Z, Wouters P. Do “Altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of Altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2003;66(10):2003–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Crewe RM. Preface. In: Academy of science of South Africa. Report on a Strategic Approach to Research Publishing in South Africa. Pretoria:ASSAf, 2006. p. i–ii.

  12. De Winter JCF. The relationship between tweets, citations, and article views for PLOS ONE articles. Scientometrics. 2015;102(2):1773–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Donato H. Traditional and alternative metrics: the full story of impact. Port J Pulmonol. 2014;20(1):1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Erdt M, Nagarajan A, Sin SCJ, Theng YL. Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media. Scientometrics. 2016;109(2):1117–66. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2077-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Eysenbach G. Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e123. doi:https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fecher B, Friesike S. Open science: one term, five schools of thought. In: Bartling S, Friesike S, editors. Open science: the evolving guide on how the Internet is changing research, collaboration, and scholarly publishing. Berlin: Springer; 2014. p. 17–48.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Frisch NK, Nathan R, Ahmed YK, Shidham VB. Authors attain comparable or slightly higher rates of citation publishing in an Open Access journal (CytoJournal) compared to traditional cytopathology journals: a five year (2007–2011) experience. CytoJournal. 2014;11:10. doi:https://doi.org/10.4103/1742-6413.131739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Galloway LM, Peace JL, Rauh AF. Introduction to Altmetrics for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) librarians. Sci Technol Libr. 2013;32:335–45. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2013.829762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation: journals can be ranked by frequency and impact of citations for science policy studies. Essays Inf Sci. 1973;1:527–44.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Geetha R. Citation analysis in annals of library and information studies during 2000–2011: a study. Unpublished Masters dissertation. 2012. http://14.139.186.108/jspui/handle/123456789/8908. Accessed 25 June 2016.

  21. Gevers W. Introduction and background. In: Academy of Science of South Africa. Report on a Strategic Approach to Research Publishing in South Africa. Pretoria:ASSAf, 2006. p. 1–8.

  22. Hammarfelt B. Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in humanities. Scientometrics. 2014;101:1419–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Harzing AW. Citation analysis across disciplines: the impact of different data sources and citationmetrics. 2010. http://www.harzing.com/data_metrics_comparison.htm. Accessed 18 June 2015.

  24. Haustein S. Grand challenges in altmetrics: heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies. Scientometrics. 2016;108:413–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Haustein S, Peters I, Bar-Ilan J, Priem J, Shema H, Terliesner J. Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics. 2014;101(2):1145–63. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1221-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hayashi T, Fujigaki Y. Differences in knowledge production between disciplines based on analysis of paper styles and citation patterns. Scientometrics. 1999;46(1):73–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Koler-Povh T, Juznic P, Turk G. Impact of open access on citation of scholarly publications in the field of civil engineering. Scientometrics. 2014;98(2):1033–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kousha K, Thelwall M. An automatic method for assessing the teaching impact of books from online academic syllabi. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015;. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23542.

  29. Loach TV, Evans TS. Ranking journals using Altmetrics. In: The proceedings of ISSI 2015: the 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics conference held in Istanbul on 30th June–2 nd July 2015, p. 89–94.

  30. Luruli NM, Mouton J. The early history of research funding in South Africa: from the research grant board to the FRD. S Afr J Sci. 2016;12(5/6):1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Luwel M. Is the science citation index US-biased? Scientometrics. 1999;46(3):549–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. McCabe MJ, Snyder CM. Identifying the effect of Open Access on citations using a panel of science journals. Econ Inq. 2014;52(4):1284–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. McVeigh ME. Open Access journals in the ISI citation databases: analysis of impact factors and citation patterns. A citation study from Thomson Scientific. 2004. http://science.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/openaccesscitations2.pdf. Accessed 24 July 2016.

  34. Meho LI, Yang K. Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: web of science versus scopus and google scholar. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2007;58(13):2105–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Miah A. Top 5 media platforms for research development. 2013. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/07/26/a-to-z-of-social-media-for-academia/. Accessed 16 Aug 2014.

  36. Mouton J, Boshoff N, Tijssen R. A comprehensive analysis of South African research journals. In: Academy of Science of South Africa. Report on a Strategic Approach to Research Publishing in South Africa. Pretoria:ASSAf, 2006. p. 29–60.

  37. Nwagwu WE. Cyberneting the academe: centralized scholarly ranking and visibility of scholars inthe developing world. J Inf Sci. 2010;36(2):228–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Onyancha OB, Ocholla DN. Assessing researchers’ performance in developing countries: is Google Scholar an alternative? Mousaion. 2009;27(1):43–64.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Piwowar H, Priem J. The power of Altmetrics on a CV. Bull Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2013;39(4):10–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Pouris A. A bibliometric assessment of South African research publications included in the internationally indexed database of Thomson ISI. In: Academy of Science of South Africa. Report on a Strategic Approach to Research Publishing in South Africa. Pretoria:ASSAf, 2006. p. 9–28.

  41. Pouris A, Richter L. Investigation into state-funded research journals in South Africa. S Afr J Sci. 2000;96:98–104.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Priem J, Taraborelli D, Groth P, Neylon C. Altmetrics: a manifesto. 2010. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/. Accessed 22 July 2016.

  43. Priem J, Groth P, Taraborelli D. The altmetrics collection. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(11):e48753. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pulverer B. Editorial: impact fact-or fiction? EMBO J. 2013;32:1651–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Republic of South Africa. Department of Higher education and Training. 2015. Research outputs policy, 2015. Government Gazette, vol 597, no. 38552.

  46. Robinson-García N, Torres-Salinas D, Zahedi Z, Costas R. New data, new possibilities: exploring the insides of Altmetric.com. El Profesional de la Información. 2014;23(4):359–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rumsey DJ. Statistics for dummies. 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley Publishing; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  48. SCImago. SJR: SCImago Journal and Country Rank. 2015. http://www.scimagojr.com. Accessed 16 July 2016.

  49. Tananbaum G. Article-level metrics: a SPARC primer. SPARC. 2013. http://www.sparc.arl.org/resource/sparc-article-level-metrics-primer. Accessed 14 July 2016.

  50. Thelwall M, Haustein S, Lariviere V, Sugimoto C. Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other web services. PLOS ONE. 2013;8(5):e64841. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Wiedmann T, Minx J. A definition of ‘carbon footprint’. In: Pertsova CC, editor. Ecological economics research trends. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.; 2007. p. 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Wilsdon J et al. The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. 2015. doi:https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363.

  53. Zahedi Z, Costas R, Wouters P. How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics. 2014;101(2):1491–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A version of this paper was presented at the 18th International Conference on Cybermetrics, Scientometrics, Informetrics and Bibliometrics, held in Barcelona, Spain during October 3–4, 2016.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Science, University of South Africa (UNISA), Post Office Box 392, Unisa, 0003, South Africa

    Omwoyo Bosire Onyancha

Authors
  1. Omwoyo Bosire Onyancha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Omwoyo Bosire Onyancha.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Onyancha, O.B. Altmetrics of South African Journals: Implications for Scholarly Impact of South African Research. Pub Res Q 33, 71–91 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9485-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9485-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation