共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 687 毫秒
1.
《Journal of Informetrics》2022,16(4):101347
News mentions to academic papers has provided an important channel for research to yield impact on broad audience in the society, and is particularly useful in scholarly communication, scientific outreach and altmetrics. Unlike academic paper, news articles are often influenced by social factors such as culture, ideology and geography. It is therefore uncertain whether news mentions to academic paper is valid for evaluative purpose as expected by altmetrics studies. In response, this study has conducted large scale statistical analysis to explore country's preference over news mentions, based on the assumption that if news mentions to academic paper is not (or weakly) influenced by social factors, no obvious country's preference would be observed, and the vice versa. The major findings are: (1) From the macro perspective, overall distribution of news mentions is highly imbalanced, with several developed countries taking the dominant position. However, no obvious preference towards domestic papers was observed. (2) From the micro perspective, based on the ZINB test results, news from all countries have more positively mentioned domestic papers and simultaneously shown preference over papers from certain countries. (3) In terms of disciplinary comparison, disciplinary differences were observed in the impact strength and specific preference. These results suggest that in micro level country's preference exist for news mentions to academic papers, but in macro level, country's preference is insignificant. Therefore, it is suggested that news mentions can be used for assessing purpose in the macro level. 相似文献
2.
Tara J. Brigham 《Medical reference services quarterly》2013,32(4):438-447
Altmetrics, or alternative metrics, are forging a new way to capture the impact of not only articles, but also scholarly or research “products” by tracking them when they are mentioned online, such as in blogs or social media platforms. While altmetrics have a lot of potential, there are also some limitations preventing their full acceptance alongside traditional citation metrics. This column will explain the basics of altmetrics and altmetric tools, discuss some of the ways they can be used in libraries, and explore some possible concerns with this new metric. A list of resources for additional information is also included. 相似文献
3.
Web2.0环境下的科学计量学:选择性计量学 总被引：4，自引：0，他引：4
介绍一种Web 2.0环境下的科学计量学理论——选择性计量学。指出选择性计量学与网络计量学既有联系又有区别,选择性计量学与传统科学质量评价的研究对象有所不同。综合分析选择性计量学在时效性、覆盖面和科学交流过程方面的独特研究意义。总结可以在多种开放存取平台和学术社交网络中提取的选择性计量学的评价指标。以Total-Impact工具为例,分析选择性数据集来源和选择性计量类型。 相似文献
4.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(4):824-839
The citations to a set of academic articles are typically unevenly shared, with many articles attracting few citations and few attracting many. It is important to know more precisely how citations are distributed in order to help statistical analyses of citations, especially for sets of articles from a single discipline and a small range of years, as normally used for research evaluation. This article fits discrete versions of the power law, the lognormal distribution and the hooked power law to 20 different Scopus categories, using citations to articles published in 2004 and ignoring uncited articles. The results show that, despite its popularity, the power law is not a suitable model for collections of articles from a single subject and year, even for the purpose of estimating the slope of the tail of the citation data. Both the hooked power law and the lognormal distributions fit best for some subjects but neither is a universal optimal choice and parameter estimates for both seem to be unreliable. Hence only the hooked power law and discrete lognormal distributions should be considered for subject-and-year-based citation analysis in future and parameter estimates should always be interpreted cautiously. 相似文献
5.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(4):895-903
Today, it is not clear how the impact of research on other areas of society than science should be measured. While peer review and bibliometrics have become standard methods for measuring the impact of research in science, there is not yet an accepted framework within which to measure societal impact. Alternative metrics (called altmetrics to distinguish them from bibliometrics) are considered an interesting option for assessing the societal impact of research, as they offer new ways to measure (public) engagement with research output. Altmetrics is a term to describe web-based metrics for the impact of publications and other scholarly material by using data from social media platforms (e.g. Twitter or Mendeley). This overview of studies explores the potential of altmetrics for measuring societal impact. It deals with the definition and classification of altmetrics. Furthermore, their benefits and disadvantages for measuring impact are discussed. 相似文献
6.
[目的/意义]引介国外近期关于altmetrics的理论思想和研究共识,以期对我国的altmetrics研究带来启示。[方法/过程]采取多种信息检索方法,如网络检索、博客跟踪、浏览会议网站的方法,查找国内外相关信息,考察altmetrics的早期理论假说、术语提出的方式和过程;引介和分析国外专家的研究共识;研究我国相关的期刊论文和博客文章,总结国内altmetrics的研究现状与问题。[结果/结论]研究发现,国外专家普遍认为altmetrics是对传统引文方法的补充,而不是替代;altmetrics测量的是科学研究的关注度和影响力,而不一定是科学研究的质量;altmetrics应该重新命名为"alternative indicators";传统引文评价方法存在的引文动机、发表时间、学科和地域差异等问题在altmetrics评价中仍然存在。因此,在用altmetrics指标进行评价的过程中,不能仅观察altmetrics应用工具提供的数字,还要考察数据源的类型、具体评价内容,最后通过定量和定性评价方法相结合做出正确的判断。我国altmetrics的相关研究虽然发展迅速,但与国际研究水平仍有较大差距。 相似文献
7.
Omwoyo Bosire Onyancha 《Publishing Research Quarterly》2017,33(1):71-91
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. 相似文献
8.
Altmetrics have been proposed as a way to assess the societal impact of research. Although altmetrics are already in use as impact or attention metrics in different contexts, it is still not clear whether they really capture or reflect societal impact. This study is based on altmetrics, citation counts, research output and case study data from the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF), and peers’ REF assessments of research output and societal impact. We investigated the convergent validity of altmetrics by using two REF datasets: publications submitted as research output (PRO) to the REF and publications referenced in case studies (PCS). Case studies, which are intended to demonstrate societal impact, should cite the most relevant research papers. We used the MHq’ indicator for assessing impact – an indicator which has been introduced for count data with many zeros. The results of the first part of the analysis show that news media as well as mentions on Facebook, in blogs, in Wikipedia, and in policy-related documents have higher MHq’ values for PCS than for PRO. Thus, the altmetric indicators seem to have convergent validity for these data. In the second part of the analysis, altmetrics have been correlated with REF reviewers’ average scores on PCS. The negative or close to zero correlations question the convergent validity of altmetrics in that context. We suggest that they may capture a different aspect of societal impact (which can be called unknown attention) to that seen by reviewers (who are interested in the causal link between research and action in society). 相似文献
9.
《Journal of Informetrics》2022,16(2):101288
Research articles are being shared in increasing numbers on multiple online platforms. Although the scholarly impact of these articles has been widely studied, the online interest determined by how long the research articles are shared online remains unclear. Being cognizant of how long a research article is mentioned online could be valuable information to the researchers. In this paper, we analyzed multiple social media platforms on which users share and/or discuss scholarly articles. We built three clusters for papers, based on the number of yearly online mentions having publication dates ranging from the year 1920 to 2016. Using the online social media metrics for each of these three clusters, we built machine learning models to predict the long-term online interest in research articles. We addressed the prediction task with two different approaches: regression and classification. For the regression approach, the Multi-Layer Perceptron model performed best, and for the classification approach, the tree-based models performed better than other models. We found that old articles are most evident in the contexts of economics and industry (i.e., patents). In contrast, recently published articles are most evident in research platforms (i.e., Mendeley) followed by social media platforms (i.e., Twitter). 相似文献
10.
Altmetrics promise useful support for assessing the impact of scientific works, including beyond the scholarly community and with very limited citation windows. Unfortunately, altmetrics scores are currently available only for recent articles and cannot be used as covariates in predicting long term impact of publications. However, the study of their statistical properties is a subject of evident interest to scientometricians. Applying the same approaches used in the literature to assess the universality of citation distributions, the intention here is to test whether the universal distribution also holds for Mendeley readerships. Results of the analysis carried out on a sample of publications randomly extracted from the Web of Science confirm that readerships seem to share similar shapes across fields and can be rescaled to a common and universal form. Such rescaling results as not particularly effective on the right tails. In other regions, rescaling causes a good collapse of field specific distributions, even for very recent publications. 相似文献
11.
Not so different after all: Malaysian researchers' cross‐discipline view of quality and trustworthiness in citation practices 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Abdullah Abrizah David Nicholas Abdullah Noorhidawati M. K. Yanti Idaya Aspura Fathiah Badawi 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(3):165-172
This paper reports a survey on citation behaviour of Malaysian researchers. It is part of a wider study gauging quality and trustworthiness in scholarly communication in the emerging digital environment. The survey questionnaire was distributed between 1 October 2014 and 31 January 2015. A total of 391 respondents, from four research areas (humanities, life sciences, physical sciences, and social sciences) completed the questionnaire. The finding indicated that motivations for citing were complex and multi‐faceted, but in all four disciplines, researchers cite a work because they regard it as an authoritative and trustworthy source, which provides a context or building block to their own research. Although researchers have moved from a print‐based system to a digital one, it has not significantly changed the way they decide what to trust. Peer reviewed journals are still the most influential. Open access journals will be cited if they have been peer reviewed. Citing on the basis of high altmetrics and other social judgements, such as mentions, likes, and use, was not prevalent. Measures of establishing trust and authority do not seem to have changed profoundly in Malaysia. 相似文献
12.
《Journal of Informetrics》2023,17(4):101452
While not all researchers prioritize social impact, it is undeniably a crucial aspect that adds significance to their work. The objective of this paper is to explore potential gender differences in the social attention paid to researchers and to examine their association with specific fields of study. To achieve this goal, the paper analyzes four dimensions of social influence and examines three measures of social attention to researchers. The dimensions are media influence (mentions in mainstream news), political influence (mentions in public policy reports), social media influence (mentions in Twitter), and educational influence (mentions in Wikipedia). The measures of social attention to researchers are: proportion of publications with social mentions (social attention orientation), mentions per publication (level of social attention), and mentions per mentioned publication (intensity of social attention). By analyzing the rankings of authors -for the four dimensions with the three measures in the 22 research fields of the Web of Science database- and by using Spearman correlation coefficients, we conclude that: 1) significant differences are observed between fields; 2) the dimensions capture different and independent aspects of the social impact. Finally, we use non-parametric means comparison tests to detect gender bias in social attention. We conclude that for most fields and dimensions with enough non-zero altmetrics data, gender differences in social attention are not predominant, but are still present and vary across fields. 相似文献
13.
Alexander Serenko Raymond A.K. Cox Nick Bontis Lorne D. Booker 《Journal of Informetrics》2011,5(3):333-345
This paper reports on the first documented attempt to investigate the presence of the superstar (or Matthew) effect in the knowledge management and intellectual capital (KM/IC) scholarly discipline. The Yule–Simon model and Lotka's square law were applied to the publication data obtained from 2175 articles from 11 KM/IC journals. Based on the findings, it was concluded that the KM/IC discipline represents a very young, attractive academic field that welcomes contributions from a variety of academics and practitioners. In their paper acceptance decisions, KM/IC journal editors are not biased towards a small group of highly productive researchers, which is a positive sign that the field has been progressing in the right direction. The discipline is driven more by academics than by practitioners, and the distribution of articles is more concentrated among a few academic but not practitioner institutions. It was also observed that the Yule–Simon model and Lotka's square law may produce different distributions with respect to institutions. 相似文献
14.
Recently, two new indicators (Equalized Mean-based Normalized Proportion Cited, EMNPC; Mean-based Normalized Proportion Cited, MNPC) were proposed which are intended for sparse scientometrics data, e.g., alternative metrics (altmetrics). The indicators compare the proportion of mentioned papers (e.g. on Facebook) of a unit (e.g., a researcher or institution) with the proportion of mentioned papers in the corresponding fields and publication years (the expected values). In this study, we propose a third indicator (Mantel-Haenszel quotient, MHq) belonging to the same indicator family. The MHq is based on the MH analysis – an established method in statistics for the comparison of proportions. We test (using citations and assessments by peers, i.e. F1000Prime recommendations) if the three indicators can distinguish between different quality levels as defined on the basis of the assessments by peers. Thus, we test their convergent validity. We find that the indicator MHq is able to distinguish between the quality levels in most cases while MNPC and EMNPC are not. Since the MHq is shown in this study to be a valid indicator, we apply it to six types of zero-inflated altmetrics data and test whether different altmetrics sources are related to quality. The results for the various altmetrics demonstrate that the relationship between altmetrics (Wikipedia, Facebook, blogs, and news data) and assessments by peers is not as strong as the relationship between citations and assessments by peers. Actually, the relationship between citations and peer assessments is about two to three times stronger than the association between altmetrics and assessments by peers. 相似文献
15.
New types of calculation methodologies, called altmetrics, which is short for alternative metrics, are increasingly being used to measure and analyze the scholarly communication networks of researchers, librarians, publishers, and funding organizations. By applying altmetrics to emergent online forums like Twitter, Academia.edu, Mendeley, and ResearchGate, studies have shown that early measures of social attention to a work or body of work can be correlated with later usage and citation statistics to predict the diffusion and impact of research output. However, standards for altmetrics are needed to build confidence and trust among the information community. 相似文献
16.
[目的/意义] 进一步探讨Web 2.0环境下选择性计量指标的有效性。[方法/过程] 以"data mining"为检索词,获得Mendeley与Web of Science两平台的交叉文献集合,分别对交叉文集的被引频数与阅读数、被引频数与标签数进行相关性检验后,从每组选取指标值差异最大与最小的各100篇文献进行具体分析。[结果/结论] 传统计量指标被引频数与Mendeley中的阅读数和标签数均存在弱相关性,证实了以阅读数和标签数为代表的选择性计量指标可以在一定程度上评估文献的影响力,且文献类型、出版年份和作者h指数会对用户阅读、引用等文献利用行为产生影响。未来文献影响力评价的发展方向应为传统文献计量方法与选择性计量方法的结合。 相似文献
17.
Carlos Luis González‐Valiente Josmel Pacheco‐Mendoza Ricardo Arencibia‐Jorge 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(4):229-238
This article analyses the scientific production of publications on altmetrics as an emergent discipline for research evaluation. The research objective was to identify the investigative tendencies that characterize the subject. The analysis studied documents indexed by Web of Science and Scopus databases. About 253 documents were retrieved, showing a growth in articles 2005–2015. We discovered that the most productive authors, journals, institutions, and countries were from Europe and North America. The collaboration networks between authors and institutions reveal a homogenous community formed by the most prolific contributors. The most explored subjects deal with (1) social media and networking, (2) internet, (3) scholarly and scientific communication and publication, (4) open access and public libraries, (5) citation analysis, (6) impact factor measurements, (7) metric disciplines, (8) information analysis, retrieval, and processing, (9) search engines and data bases, and (10) evaluative bibliometrics. We discovered a nucleus of contributors who have attempted to solidify the knowledge area, with emerging principles of high theoretical consistency. 相似文献
18.
论文在期刊中分布规律的低频公式 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
本文重点对布拉德福定律中Ｇｒｏｏｓ下垂问题进行了研究，并首次给出了一个描述论文在期刊中分布规律的低频公式。本文的工作包括三个部分：１）对布拉德福定律与布拉德福统计数据（１９３４）的吻合情况进行了检验，指出布拉德福定律与布拉德福数据之间存在的明显差异；２）作为本文的重点，给出了一个描述论文在期刊中分布规律的低频公式，并用布拉德福（１９３４）和Ｐｏｐｅ（１９７５）给出的经典统计数据进行了验证，证明了公式的正确性；３）将本文提出的低频公式应用于对布拉德福统计数据的修正，并通过计算表明，利用本文给出的低频公式修正后的布拉德福数据同布拉德福定律的图象描述取得了高度的一致，证明了本文低频公式的应用价值。 相似文献
19.
20.
Arif E. JINHA 《Learned Publishing》2010,23(3):258-263
How many scholarly research articles are there in existence? Journal articles first appeared in 1665, and the cumulative total is estimated here to have passed 50 million in 2009. This sum was arrived at based on published figures for global annual output for 2006, and analyses of annual output and growth rates published in the last decade. 相似文献