Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social Media Metrics for New Research Evaluation

  • Chapter
Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators

Part of the book series: Springer Handbooks ((SHB))

Abstract

This chapter approaches, from both a theoretical and practical perspective, the most important principles and conceptual frameworks that can be considered in the application of social media metrics for scientific evaluation. We propose conceptually valid uses for social media metrics in research evaluation. The chapter discusses frameworks and uses of these metrics as well as principles and recommendations for the consideration and application of current (and potentially new) metrics in research evaluation.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. J. Priem, D. Taraborelli, P. Groth, C. Neylon: Altmetrics: A manifesto, http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/ (2010)

  2. S. Haustein, T.D. Bowman, R. Costas: Interpreting altmetrics: Viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories. In: Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication, ed. by C.R. Sugimoto (De Gruyter, Berlin 2016) pp. 372–406

    Google Scholar 

  3. T. Almind, P. Ingwersen: Informetric analyses on the world wide web: Methodological approaches to “webometrics”, J. Doc. 53, 404–426 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. B. Cronin, H.W. Snyder, H. Rosenbaum, A. Martinson, E. Callahan: Invoked on the web, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 49(14), 1319–1328 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. R. Rousseau: Sitations: An exploratory study, Cybermetrics 1(1), 1–7 (1997), http://hdl.handle.net/10261/170110

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. Priem, H. Piwowar, B. Hemminger: Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact, arXiv:1203.4745v1 (2012) [cs.DL]

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. Priem, B.H. Hemminger: Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social web, First Monday (2010), https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i7.2874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. J. Priem: Scholarship: Beyond the paper, Nature 495(7442), 437–440 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. P. Wouters, M. Thelwall, K. Kousha, L. Waltman, S. De Rijcke, A. Rushforth, T. Franssen: The metric tide: Literature review (supplementary report I to the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management), Hefce (2015), https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.5066.3520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. P. Wouters, R. Costas: Users, narcissism and control—Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century, Utrecht: SURFfoundation, http://research-acumen.eu/wp-content/uploads/Users-narcissism-and-control.pdf (2012)

  11. National Information Standards Organization: Outputs of the NISO Alternative Assessment Metrics Project (2016), https://groups.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/17091/NISO+RP-25-2016+Outputs+of+the+NISO+Alternative+Assessment+Project.pdf

  12. J. Wilsdon, L. Allen, E. Belfiore, P. Campbell, S. Curry, S. Hill, R. Jones, R. Kain, S. Kerridge, M. Thelwall, J. Tinkler, I. Viney, P. Wouters, J. Hill, B. Johnson: The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management (HEFCE, Stoke Gifford 2015), https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. D. Hicks, P. Wouters, L. Waltman, S. de Rijcke, I. Rafols: The Leiden manifesto for research metrics, Nature 520, 429–431 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA): http://www.ascb.org/dora/ (2013)

  15. W. Glänzel: The need for standards in bibliometric research and technology, Scientometrics 35(2), 167–176 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. H.F. Moed: Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation, Vol. 9 (Springer, Dordrecht 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  17. L. Leydesdorff, P. Wouters, L. Bornmann: Professional and citizen bibliometrics: Complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators—A state-of-the-art report, Scientometrics 109(3), 2129–2150 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. M. Thelwall: Introduction to webometrics: Quantitative web research for the social sciences, Synth. Lect. Inf. Concepts Retr. Serv. 1(1), 1–116 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  19. P. Wouters, W. Glänzel, J. Gläser, I. Rafols: The dilemmas of performance indicators of individual researchers: An urgent debate in bibliometrics, ISSI Newsletter 9(3), 48–53 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  20. P. Wouters, J. Bar-Ilan, M. Thelwall, I.F. Aguillo, Ü. Must, F. Havemann, J. Schneider: ACUMEN Final Report (ACUMEN Consortium, Brussels 2014), http://research-acumen.eu/wp-content/uploads/ACUMEN-Guidelines-Portfolio-TOC-document-v13.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  21. H.F. Moed: Altmetrics as traces of the computerization of the research process. In: Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication, ed. by C.R. Sugimoto (De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston 2016)

    Google Scholar 

  22. S. Haustein: Grand challenges in altmetrics: Heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies, Scientometrics 108(1), 413–423 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. R. Costas: Towards the social media studies of science: Social media metrics, present and future, Bibl. An. Investig. 13(1), 1–5 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  24. H. Shema, J. Bar-Ilan, M. Thelwall: Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(5), 1018–1027 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. I. Rowlands, D. Nicholas, B. Russell, N. Canty, A. Watkinson: Social media use in the research workflow, Learn. Publ. 24(3), 183–195 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. E. Orduña-Malea, A. Martín-Martín, E.D. López-Cózar: ResearchGate como fuente de evaluación científica: Desvelando sus aplicaciones bibliométricas, Prof. Inf. 25(2), 303–310 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  27. M. Thelwall, K. Kousha: ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations?, Scientometrics (2017), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2400-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Z. Zahedi, R. Costas: General discussion of data quality challenges in social media metrics: Extensive comparison of four major altmetric data aggregators, PloS ONE 13(5), e0197326 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. P.B. Brandtzæg: Towards a unified media-user typology (MUT): A meta-analysis and review of the research literature on media-user typologies, Comput. Hum. Behav. 26(5), 940–956 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. S.J. Barnes, H. Bauer, M. Neumann, F. Huber: Segmenting cyberspace: A customer typology for the internet, Eur. J. Mark. 41(1), 71–93 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. S. Haustein, V. Larivière: Mendeley as a source of global readership by students and postdocs? Evaluating article usage by academic status. In: 35th Int. Assoc. Technol. Univ. Librar. (IATUL), 2–5 June 2014, Aalto Univ., Helsinki (2014) pp. 1–10, http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/2014/altmetrics/2

    Google Scholar 

  32. Z. Zahedi, R. Costas, P. Wouters: Assessing the impact of publications saved by Mendeley users: Is there any different pattern among users? In: 35th Int. Assoc. Technol. Univ. Librar. (IATUL), 2–5 June 2014, Aalto Univ., Helsinki (2014) pp. 1–12, http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/2014/altmetrics/4

    Google Scholar 

  33. E. Mohammadi, M. Thelwall: Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(8), 1627–1638 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. S. Haustein, T.D. Bowman, R. Costas: Communities of attention around journal papers: Who is tweeting about scientific publications? In: Soc. Media Soc. 2015 Int. Conf., Toronto (2015) pp. 4–5

    Google Scholar 

  35. S. Haustein, T.D. Bowman, R. Costas: When is an article actually published? An analysis of online availability, publication, and indexation dates. In: 15th Int. Conf. Scientom. Informetr. (ISSI) (2015) pp. 1170–1179, arXiv:1505.00796v1

    Google Scholar 

  36. S. Haustein, R. Costas: Identifying Twitter audiences: Who is tweeting about scientific papers? In: ASISandT SIG/MET Metrics 2015 Workshop Identifying, St. Louis (2015) pp. 9–11

    Google Scholar 

  37. R. Costas, J. van Honk, T. Franssen: Identifying scholars on Twitter: Opening the path to the social media studies of science. In: 4 AM Conf. (2017), http://altmetricsconference.com/register-for-4am-in-toronto/

    Google Scholar 

  38. R. Costas, J. van Honk, T. Franssen: Scholars on Twitter: Who and how many are they? In: 16th Int. Conf. Scientom. Informetr. (ISSI), Wuhan, Wuhan Univ. (2017) pp. 224–235, https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.05667

    Google Scholar 

  39. Q. Ke, Y. Ahn, C.R. Sugimoto: A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter, PLOS ONE 12(4), 1–28 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  40. D.M. Boyd, N.B. Ellison: Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 13(1), 210–230 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. R.D. Putnam: Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Simon Schuster, New York 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  42. M. Hofer, V. Aubert: Perceived bridging and bonding social capital on Twitter: Differentiating between followers and followees, Comput. Hum. Behav. 29(6), 2134–2142 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. M. Kaigo: Social media usage during disasters and social capital: Twitter and the great east Japan earthquake, Keio Commun. Rev. 34, 19–35 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  44. N. Robinson-Garcia, T.N. van Leeuwen, I. Rafols: Using altmetrics for contextualised mapping of societal impact: From hits to networks, Sci. Publ. Policy 45(6), 815–862 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. C. Hank, C.R. Sugimoto, A. Tsou, J. Pomerantz: Faculty and student interactions via Facebook: Policies, preferences, and practices, Inf. Technol. 56(5), 216–223 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  46. S. Haustein, R. Costas, V. Larivière: Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns, PLoS ONE 10(3), e0120495 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. H. Shema, J. Bar-Ilan, M. Thelwall: How is research blogged? A content analysis approach, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66(6), 1136–1149 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Y. Gingras: Criteria for evaluating indicators. In: Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact, ed. by B. Cronin, C.R. Sugimoto (MIT Press, Cambridge 2014) pp. 108–125

    Google Scholar 

  49. R.E. Rice, C.L. Borgman, D. Bednarski, P.J. Hart: Journal-to-journal citation data: Issues of validity and reliability, Scientometrics 15(3/4), 257–282 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. A.J. Nederhof: The validity and reliability of evaluation scholarly performance. In: Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, ed. by A.F.J. van Raan (Elsevier, Amsterdam 1988) pp. 193–228

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  51. L. Bornmann, H.-D. Daniel: What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior, J. Doc. (2008), https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. M.H. MacRoberts, B.R. MacRoberts: Citation analysis and the science policy arena, Trends Biochem. Sci. 14(1), 8–12 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. M.H. MacRoberts, B.R. MacRoberts: The mismeasure of science: Citation analysis, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. J. Nicolaisen: Citation analysis, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 41, 609–641 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. N. Maflahi, M. Thelwall: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(1), 191–199 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. M. Thelwall: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published?, Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 69(2), 174–183 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Z. Zahedi, R. Costas, P. Wouters: Mendeley readership as a filtering tool to identify highly cited publications, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 68(10), 2511–2521 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. R. Costas, S. Haustein, Z. Zahedi: Larivière: Exploring paths for the normalization of altmetrics: Applying the characteristic scores and scales. In: Altmetrics16. Moving Beyond Counts: Integrating Context, Bucharest (2016) pp. 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  59. M. Thelwall, K. Kousha: Web indicators for research evaluation. Part 2: Social media metrics, Prof. Inf. 24(5), 607 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  60. R. Costas, Z. Zahedi, P. Wouters: Do altmetrics correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66(10), 2003–2019 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. M. Nardo, M. Saisana, A. Saltelli, S. Tarantola, A. Hoffman, E. Giovannini: Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators Methodology and User Guide, OECD Statistics Working Papers (OECD, Paris 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  62. X. Li, M. Thelwall: F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. In: Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Sci. Technol. Indicators, Vol. 3 (2012) pp. 451–551

    Google Scholar 

  63. Z. Zahedi, R. Costas, P. Wouters: How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of “alternative metrics” in scientific publications, Scientometrics 101(2), 1491–1513 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. R. Haunschild, L. Bornmann: F1000Prime: An analysis of discipline-specific reader data from Mendeley, F1000Research 41, 1–5 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  65. L. Waltman, R. Costas: F1000 recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation: A comparison with citations, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(3), 433–445 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. M. Thelwall, S. Haustein, V. Larivière, C.R. Sugimoto: Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services, PLoS ONE 8(5), e64841 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. K. Holmberg: The impact of retweeting on altmetrics. In: Altmetrics14: Expand. Impacts Metrics ACM Web Sci. Conf. Workshop, Bloomintong (2014) pp. 2–4, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1037555

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  68. C.R. Sugimoto, S. Work, V. Larivière, S. Haustein: Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 68(9), 2037–2062 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. N. Mallig: A relational database for bibliometric analysis, J. Informetr. 4(4), 564–580 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. F. Narin: Evaluative Bibliometrics: The Use of Publication and Citation Anlaysis in the Evaluation of Scientific Activity (Computer Horizons, Washington 1976)

    Google Scholar 

  71. T. van Leeuwen: Descriptive versus evaluative bibliometrics. In: Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, ed. by H.F. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch (Springer, Dordrecht 2004) pp. 373–388

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  72. L. Waltman, N.J. Van Eck: The need for contextualized scientometric analysis: An opinion paper. In: STI Conference 2016. Peripheries, Frontiers and Beyond, ed. by I. Ràfols, J. Molas-Gallart, E. Castro-Martínez, R. Woolley (Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia 2016) pp. 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  73. R. Costas, Z. Zahedi, P. Wouters: The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations, Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 67(3), 260–288 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. R. Costas, A. Perianes-Rodríguez, J. Ruiz-Castillo: On the quest for currencies of science: Field “exchange rates” for citations and Mendeley readership, Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 69(5), 557–575 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. M. Thelwall: Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation, J. Inf. 11(1), 128–151 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  76. G. Colavizza, M. Franceschet: Clustering citation histories in the Physical Review, J. Informetr. 10(4), 1037–1051 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. L. Waltman, N.J. van Eck: Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method, J. Informetr. 9(4), 872–894 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. N. Maflahi, M. Thelwall: How quickly do publications get read? The evolution of mendeley reader counts for new articles, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. L. Waltman, N.J. Van Eck: A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63(12), 2378–2392 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. N.J. van Eck, L. Waltman: Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping, Scientometrics 84(2), 523–538 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. R. Costas, J. Van Honk, C. Calero-Medina, Z. Zahedi: Discussing practical applications for altmetrics: Development of “social media profiles” for African, European and North American publications. In: 22nd Int. Conf. Sci. Technol. Indicators (STI), Paris (2017), https://sti2017.paris/full-programme/

    Google Scholar 

  82. J. van Honk, R. Costas: Integrating context in Twitter metrics: Preliminary investigation on the possibilities of hashtags as an altmetric resource. In: Altmetrics16. Moving Beyond Counts: Integrating Context, Bucharest (2016) pp. 1–7, http://altmetrics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/altmetrics16_paper_5.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  83. R. Haunschild, L. Bornmann, L. Leydesdorff: Networks of reader and country status: An analysis of Mendeley reader statistics, PeerJ Comput. Sci. 1, e32 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. P. Kraker, C. Schlögl, K. Jack, S. Lindstaedt: Visualization of co-readership patterns from an online reference management system, J. Informetr. 9(1), 169–182 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Z. Zahedi, N. Van Eck: Exploring topics of interest of Mendeley users, J. Altmetrics 1(1), 5 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Z. Zahedi, N.J. Van Eck: Visualizing readership activity of Mendeley users using VOSviewer. In: Altmetrics14: Expand. Impacts Metrics ACM Web Sci. Conf. 2014 Altmetrics Workshop, Indiana Univ. (Figshare, Indiana 2014), https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1041770

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  87. J. Jiang, D. He, C. Ni: Social reference. In: Proc. 11th Annu. Int. ACM/IEEE Joint Conf. Digital Librar.–JCDL'11, Vol. 11 (ACM, New York 2011) p. 401

    Google Scholar 

  88. K.W. Boyack, R. Klavans: Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61(12), 2389–2404 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. H. Small: Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 24(4), 265–269 (1973)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. R. Haunschild, L. Bornmann: Normalization of Mendeley reader counts for impact assessment, J. Informetr. 10(1), 62–73 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. E. Mohammadi, M. Thelwall, S. Haustein, V. Larivière: Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66(9), 1832–1846 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. J. Bar-Ilan: Astrophysics publications on arXiv, Scopus and Mendeley: A case study, Scientometrics 100(1), 217–225 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. M. Thelwall, P. Sud: Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(12), 3036–3050 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. D. Torres-Salinas, Á. Cabezas-Clavijo, E. Jiménez-Contreras: Altmetrics: New indicators for scientific communication in Web 2.0, Comunicar 21(41), 53–60 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. S. Haustein, I. Peters, C.R. Sugimoto, M. Thelwall, V. Larivière: Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(4), 656–669 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. L. Bornmann, R. Haunschild: Normalization of Mendeley reader impact on the reader- and paper-side: A comparison of the mean discipline normalized reader score (MDNRS) with the mean normalized reader score (MNRS) and bare reader counts, J. Informetr. 10(3), 776–788 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Z. Zahedi: Understanding the value of social media metrics for research evaluation, Doctoral dissertation (Centre for Science & Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden Univ., Leiden 2018)

    Google Scholar 

  98. L. Bornmann: Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime, J. Informetr. 8(4), 935–950 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. L. Bornmann, L. Leydesdorff: The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000, J. Informetr. 7(2), 286–291 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. L. Bornmann, R. Haunschild: t factor: A metric for measuring impact on Twitter, Malays. J. Lib. Inf. Sci. 21(2), 13–20 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  101. H. Piwowar, J. Priem: Researcher-level altmetrics. In: 3:Am Conf., Bucharest (2016), https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3980091.v1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  102. G. Eysenbach: Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact, J. Med. Internet Res. 13(4), e123 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. L. Bornmann: What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 64(2), 217–233 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. L. Bornmann, R. Haunschild: Which people use which scientific papers? An evaluation of data from F1000: Discovery Service para Universidad de La Rioja, J. Informetr. 9(3), 477–487 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Z. Zahedi, R. Costas, V. Larivière, S. Haustein: On the relationships between bibliometric and altmetric indicators: The effect of discipline and density level. In: The 2016 Altmetrics Workshop, Bucharest (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  106. Z. Zahedi, S. Haustein: On the relationships between bibliographic characteristics of scientific documents and citation and Mendeley readership counts: A large-scale analysis of web of science publications, J. Informetr. 12(1), 191–202 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. L. Bornmann, R. Haunschild: To what extent does the Leiden manifesto also apply to altmetrics? A discussion of the manifesto against the background of research into altmetrics, Online Inf. Rev. 40(4), 529–543 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ludo Waltman for his critical comments on this chapter. We also acknowledge partial funding from the South African DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and Science, Technology and Innovation Policy ( ), the Centre for Research Quality and Policy Impact Studies (R-Quest; https://www.r-quest.no/) and the KNOWSCIENCE project (funded by the Riksbankens Jubileumsfond ( ), https://www.fek.lu.se/en/research/research-groups/knowscience).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Paul Wouters, Zohreh Zahedi & Rodrigo Costas

Authors
  1. Paul Wouters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zohreh Zahedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rodrigo Costas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Wouters .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ECOOM and Faculty of Economics and Business, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Wolfgang Glänzel

  2. Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Henk F. Moed

  3. Competence Center Policy – Industry – Innovation, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Ulrich Schmoch

  4. Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK

    Mike Thelwall

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wouters, P., Zahedi, Z., Costas, R. (2019). Social Media Metrics for New Research Evaluation. In: Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch, U., Thelwall, M. (eds) Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Springer Handbooks. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_26

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation