Advertisement

A Comparison of the Citing, Publishing, and Tweeting Activity of Scholars on Web of Science

  • Rodrigo CostasEmail author
  • Márcia R. Ferreira
Chapter

Abstract

Social media are computer-mediated technologies that facilitate the exchange of research outcomes and make them available to larger audiences and networks. As a result, researchers are gradually integrating these tools into their everyday workflow. This phenomenon has contributed to the development of alternative impact indicators or altmetrics. Most of the research in the area of altmetrics was focused on describing the relationship between social media indicators and bibliometric indicators. In 2016, Henk Moed argued that web-based indicators “do not have function merely in the evaluation of research performance of individuals and groups, but also in the research process”. This statement motivates us to go beyond the evaluative perspective of altmetrics to a more contextualized perspective in which the study of the citing, publishing, and tweeting activities of researchers on Web of Science is compared. Results show that, at the individual researcher level, Twitter-based indicators are empirically different from production-based and citation-based bibliometric indicators. The results of this chapter should be seen as a first step towards a conceptual shift from a mere study of the reception of publications on Twitter to a more dynamic perspective that focuses on the social media activities of researchers as part of their computerization of the scientific process. Future research directions based on the findings presented in this study are also suggested.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Rodrigo Costas was partially funded by the South African DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (SciSTIP). Márcia R. Ferreira was partially funded by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency FFG under grant #857136. The authors thank Nicolás Robinson-García from TU Delft (NL) for his technical help with the cosine analysis and Philippe Mongeon for his critical comments and feedback on earlier drafts of this work.

References

  1. Aksnes, D. W. (2003). A macro study of self-citation. Scientometrics, 56(2), 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alperin, J. P., Gomez, C. J., & Haustein, S. (2018). Identifying diffusion patterns of research articles on Twitter: A case study of online engagement with open access articles. Public Understanding of Science, 28(1), 2–18.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518761733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowman, T. D. (2015). Differences in personal and professional tweets of scholars. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 356–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caron, E., & van Eck, N. J. (2014). Large scale author name disambiguation using rule-based scoring and clustering. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 79–86).Google Scholar
  5. Costas, R., Mongeon, P., Ferreira, M.R., van Honk, J., & Franssen, T. (2019). Large-scale identification and characterization of scholars on Twitter. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(2), 771–791. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00047.
  6. Costas, R., van Honk, J., & Franssen, T. (2017). Scholars on Twitter: Who and how many are they? In International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, China (Wuhan).Google Scholar
  7. Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T., & Bordons, M. (2010). Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: Effects of different calculation methods. Scientometrics, 82(3), 517–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Côte, I. M., & Darling, E. S. (2018). Scientists on Twitter: Preaching to the choir or singing from the rooftops? FACETS a Multidisciplinary Open Access Science Journal, 682–694.Google Scholar
  9. Desrochers, N., Paul-Hus, A., Haustein, S., Costas, R., Mongeon, P., Quan-Haase, A., et al. (2018). Authorship, citations, acknowledgements and visibility in social media: Symbolic capital in the multifaceted reward system of science. Social Science Information, 57(2), 223–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Díaz-Faes, A. A., Bowman, T. D., & Costas, R. (2019). Towards a second generation of ‘social media metrics’: Characterizing Twitter communities of attention around science. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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, 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., Holmberg, K., Peters, I., & Lairivière, V. (2014). Astrophysicists on Twitter. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(3), 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holmberg, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics, 101, 1027–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Joubert, M., & Costas, R. (2019). Getting to know science Tweeters: A pilot analysis of South African Twitter users tweeting about research articles. Journal of Altmetrics, 2(1), 2. http://doi.org/10.29024/joa.8
  15. Ke, Q., Ahn, Y. Y., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2017). A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter. PLoS ONE, 12(4), e0175368.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018). Author-level metrics in the new academic profile platforms: The online behaviour of the Bibliometrics community. Journal of Informetrics, 12, 494–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moed, H. F. (2016). Altmetrics as traces of the computerization of the research process. In C.R. Sugimoto & B. Cronin (Eds.), Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication (pp. 360–371).  https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110308464-021.
  18. Mongeon, P. (2018). Using social and topical distance to analyze information sharing on social media. In Proceedings of the 81st Annual ASIS&T Meeting, Vancouver, 10–14 November 2018.Google Scholar
  19. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of web of science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mongeon, P., Xu, S., Bowman, T. D., & Costas, R. (2018). Tweeting library and information science: a socio-topical distance analysis. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. Leiden, 12–14 September 2018.Google Scholar
  21. Nane, G., Larivière, V., & Costas, R. (2017). Predicting the age of researchers using bibliometric data. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 713–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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, 1353–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Robinson-Garcia, N., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Rafols, I. (2017). Using altmetrics for contextualised mapping of societal impact: From hits to networks. Science and Public Policy, 45(6), 815–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Said, A., Bowman, T. D., Abbaso, R. A., Ajohani, N. R., Hassan, S. U., & Nawaz, R. (2019). Mining network-level properties of Twitter altmetrics data. Scientometrics, 120(1), 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Salton, G., & McGill, M. J. (1986). Introduction to modern information retrieval. McGraw-Hill, Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, 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, 2037–2062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Teka Hagdu, A., & Jäschke, R. (2014). Identifying and analyzing researchers on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM conference on Web science. Bloomington (USA). http://doi.org/10.1145/2615569.2615676
  28. Vera-Baceta, M. A., Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2019). Web of science and Scopus language coverage. Scientometrics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03264-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang, Q., & Waltman, L. (2016). Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10, 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control—tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. The Netherlands: SURFfoundation. http://research-acumen.eu/wp-content/uploads/Users-narcissism-and-control.pdf
  31. Wouters, P., Zahedi, Z., & Costas, R. (2018). Social media metrics for new research evaluation. In W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall, (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Yu, H., Xiao, T., Xu, S., & Wang, Y. (2019). Who posts scientific tweets? An investigation into the productivity, locations, and identities of scientific tweeters. Journal of Informetrics, 13(3), 841–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zahedi, Z., & Costas, R. (2018). General discussion of data quality challenges in social media metrics: Extensive comparison of four major altmetric data aggregators. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology (CREST), Stellenbosch UniversityStellenboschSouth Africa
  3. 3.Complexity Science Hub ViennaViennaAustria
  4. 4.TU Wien (Vienna University of Technology)ViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations