Can Social Reference Management Systems Predict a Ranking of Scholarly Venues?
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.
KeywordsScholarly Venues Ranking Digital Libraries Bibliometrics Altmetrics Impact Factor Readership Social Reference Management Citation Analysis Google Scholar Metrics
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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.Neylon, C., Wu, S.: Article-Level Metrics and the Evolution of Scientific Impact. PLoS Biology 7(6) (2009)Google Scholar
- 6.Bergstrom, C.: Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. CRL News 68, 314–316 (2007)Google Scholar
- 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.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.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.Rahm, E., Thor, A.: Citation analysis of database publications. ACM SIGMOD Record, 48–53 (2005)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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