Can Social Reference Management Systems Predict a Ranking of Scholarly Venues?

  • Hamed Alhoori
  • Richard Furuta
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8092)


New scholarly venues (e.g., conferences and journals) are emerging as research fields expand. Ranking these new venues is imperative to assist researchers, librarians, and research institutions. However, rankings based on traditional citation-based metrics have limitations and are no longer the only or the best choice to determine the impact of scholarly venues. Here, we propose a venue-ranking approach based on scholarly references from academic social media sites, and we compare a number of citation-based rankings with social-based rankings. Our preliminary results show a statistically significant correlation between the two approaches in a number of general rankings, research areas, and subdisciplines. Furthermore, we found that social-based rankings favor open-access venues over venues that require a subscription.


Scholarly Venues Ranking Digital Libraries Bibliometrics Altmetrics Impact Factor Readership Social Reference Management Citation Analysis Google Scholar Metrics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Darmoni, S.J., Roussel, F., Benichou, J., Thirion, B., Pinhas, N.: Reading factor: a new bibliometric criterion for managing digital libraries. Journal of the Medical Library Association, JMLA 90, 323–327 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Neylon, C., Wu, S.: Article-Level Metrics and the Evolution of Scientific Impact. PLoS Biology 7(6) (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brody, T., Harnad, S., Carr, L.: Earlier Web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact: Research Articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57, 1060 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rinia, E., Van Leeuwen, T., Bruins, E., Van Vuren, H., Van Raan, A.: Citation delay in interdisciplinary knowledge exchange. Scientometrics 51, 293–309 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    González-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V.P., Moya-Anegón, F.: A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics 4, 379–391 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bergstrom, C.: Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. CRL News 68, 314–316 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Serenko, A., Dohan, M.: Comparing the expert survey and citation impact journal ranking methods: Example from the field of Artificial Intelligence. Journal of Informetrics 5, 629–648 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holsapple, C.W.: A Publication Power Approach for Identifying Premier Information Systems Journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 59, 166–185 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhuang, Z., Elmacioglu, E., Lee, D., Giles, C.L.: Measuring conference quality by mining program committee characteristics. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, pp. 225–234. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yan, S., Lee, D.: Toward alternative measures for ranking venues. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, pp. 235–244. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martins, W.S., Gonçalves, M.A., Laender, A.H.F., Pappa, G.L.: Learning to assess the quality of scientific conferences. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, pp. 193–202. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rahm, E., Thor, A.: Citation analysis of database publications. ACM SIGMOD Record, 48–53 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., Chute, R.: A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PloS One 4, e6022 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alhoori, H., Furuta, R.: Understanding the Dynamic Scholarly Research Needs and Behavior as Applied to Social Reference Management. In: Gradmann, S., Borri, F., Meghini, C., Schuldt, H. (eds.) TPDL 2011. LNCS, vol. 6966, pp. 169–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li, X., Thelwall, M., Giustini, D.: Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics 91, 461–471 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kraker, P., Körner, C., Jack, K., Granitzer, M.: Harnessing user library statistics for research evaluation and knowledge domain visualization. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference Companion on World Wide Web - WWW 2012 Companion, pp. 1017–1024. ACM (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hamed Alhoori
    • 1
  • Richard Furuta
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for the Study of Digital Libraries and Department of Computer Science and EngineeringTexas A&M UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations