Étiquette : Altmetrics

Catégories
EN

Diverse roles of twitter in research evaluation: original tweets and retweets capture different types of engagements with scholarly articles

Authors :  Ashraf Maleki, Kim Holmberg

Altmetrics need to be more critically assessed in terms of the extent to which they reflect impact and quality of research compared to popularity or mere attention. Twitter (now rebranded as X) is a popular platform to, among other things, discuss and share scientific articles.

Earlier altmetric studies have often focused on investigating whether the number of tweets mentioning scientific articles could be used as an indicator of scientific impact or attention, with results showing weak to moderate correlations with citation counts. But all tweets may not be equal, as original tweets and retweets may reflect different levels of engagement and impact. Using a dataset of over 330,000 PLOS publications, this study explores whether these two forms of Twitter activity correlate differently with traditional citation metrics and how these relationships vary across disciplines.

The findings showed the correlation between citations and original tweets was consistently higher than that between citations and retweets and significant weak or moderate, but higher in Social Science and Humanities than in Natural Science, Engineering and Medicine fields. Also, including zero citation counts improved the correlation coefficients for original tweets, but reduced that of retweets.

This indicates that original tweets may be more aligned with citation counts as an indicator of scholarly impact, whereas retweets might reflect broader dissemination and popularity. In conclusion, tweets and retweets are different altmetric indicators and should be considered as two different metrics and analysed separately.

URL : Diverse roles of twitter in research evaluation: original tweets and retweets capture different types of engagements with scholarly articles

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvag014

Catégories
EN

Evaluating Open Access Advantages for Citations and Altmetrics (2011-21): A Dynamic and Evolving Relationship

Author : Mike Taylor

Differences between the impacts of Open Access (OA) and non-OA research have been observed over a range of citation and altmetric indicators, usually finding an Open Access Advantage (OAA). However, science-wide analyses covering multiple years, indicators and disciplines are lacking. Using citations and six altmetrics for 33.3M articles published 2011-21, we compare OA and non-OA papers.

The results show that there is no universal OAA across all disciplines or impact indicators: the OAA for citations tends to be lower for recent papers, whereas the OAAs for news, blogs and Twitter are consistent across years and unrelated to volume of OA publications. Wikipedia OAAs are consistently pronounced for all subjects except Humanities (HU) and Social Sciences. Patent OAAs for are strongest for Medical & Health Sciences (MHS) and Life Sciences (LS).

Uniquely, the OAAs for Policy citations is stronger for recently published research. These results support different hypotheses for different subjects and indicators. The evidence is consistent with OA accelerating research impact in MHS, LS and HU; increased visibility/discoverability being a factor in promoting the socio-economic impact; and that OA is a factor in growing online engagement with research. OAAs are therefore complex, dynamic, multi-factorial and require considerable analysis to understand.

URL : Evaluating Open Access Advantages for Citations and Altmetrics (2011-21): A Dynamic and Evolving Relationship

DOI : Serendipity and Scientific Styles: An Ordinary

Catégories
EN

Altmetrics in the evaluation of scholarly impact: a systematic and critical literature review

Authors : Paloma González, Martha Fors, Ariel Torres

Altmetrics have emerged as a complementary tool to traditional citation-based metrics in the assessment of scholarly impact. Unlike traditional metrics that primarily capture academic citations over long periods, altmetrics reflect immediate online attention across platforms such as Twitter, blogs, news outlets, and Mendeley.

This article critically examines whether altmetrics can serve as a substitute for traditional metrics by exploring their strengths, limitations, disciplinary variations, and correlation with conventional indicators.

Through a review of recent empirical studies and theoretical debates, the article argues that while altmetrics offer valuable insights into social impact and engagement, they are not yet mature or standardized enough to fully replace traditional metrics. Instead, a hybrid model that integrates both systems may offer a more holistic and inclusive measure of research influence.

URL : Altmetrics in the evaluation of scholarly impact: a systematic and critical literature review

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1693304

Catégories
FR

Confiance et pratiques informationnelles d’accès à la science ouverte en SHS

Autrice : Mariannig Le Béchec

Prenant en compte l’étude des usages des quatre plateformes d’OpenEdition, cet article considère que les publics des savoirs ouverts développent des pratiques informationnelles en lien avec leur cursus universitaire.

L’objectif est de mieux prendre en compte la façon dont des liens se constituent entre les pratiques ordinaires d’accès aux publications scientifiques et la confiance décidée dans leurs pratiques informationnelles.

L’étude qualitative présente un accès par des plateformes commerciales, une lecture sélective et des relais en interne ou par la conversation qui ne tiennent pas compte des métriques des articles scientifiques dans les choix de lecture.

URL : https://lesenjeux.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/2025/varia/confiance-et-pratiques-informationnelles-dacces-a-la-science-ouverte-en-shs/

 

Catégories
EN

Social Media Analysis of High-Impact Information and Communication Journals: Adoption, Use, and Content Curation

Authors : Jesús Cascón-Katchadourian, Javier Guallar, Wileidys Artigas

The use of social media to disseminate academic content is increasing, particularly in scientific journals. This study has the following two main objectives: first, exploring the use of social media by high-impact academic journals in two different SJR categories (Library and Information Sciences and Communication), and second, analyzing content curation carried out by the world’s most influential journals in both areas. The research methodology is descriptive with a quantitative approach regarding the items studied.

The study finds that COM journals have a stronger social media presence than LIS journals, and X dominates in both categories and regions as the top social network, with significant influence as the only platform. On the other hand, content curation was found to a high degree in both areas, especially in the LIS area, with 93% vs. 80% in COM. The study highlights that both COM and LIS journals primarily focus on promoting recent articles, with COM diversifying content more than LIS. In terms of the content curation techniques used in both areas, the majority are abstracting and summarizing.

URL : Social Media Analysis of High-Impact Information and Communication Journals: Adoption, Use, and Content Curation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13010005

Catégories
EN

Open access publications drive few visits from Google Search results to institutional repositories

Authors : Enrique Orduña‑Malea, Cristina I. Font‑Julián

Given the importance of Google Search in generating visits to institutional repositories (IR), a lack of visibility in search engine results pages can hinder the possibility of their publications being found, read, downloaded, and, eventually, cited.

To address this, institutions need to evaluate the visibility of their repositories to determine what actions might be implemented to enhance them. However, measuring the search engine optimization (SEO) visibility of IRs requires a highly accurate, technically feasible method. This study constitutes the first attempt to design such a method, specifically applied here to measuring the IR visibility of Spain’s national university system in Google Search based on a set of SEO-based metrics derived from the Ubersuggest SEO tool.

A comprehensive dataset spanning three months and comprising 217,589 bibliographic records and 316,899 organic keywords is used as a baseline. Our findings show that many records deposited in these repositories are not ranked among the top positions in Google Search results, and that the most visible records are mainly academic works (theses and dissertations) written in Spanish in the Humanities and Social Sciences.

However, most visits are generated by a small number of records. All in all, our results call into question the role played by IRs in attracting readers via Google Search to the institutions’ scientific heritage and serve to underscore the prevailing emphasis within IRs on preservation as opposed to online dissemination.

Potential improvements might be achieved using enhanced metadata schemes and normalized description practices, as well as by adopting other actionable insights that can strengthen the online visibility of IRs.

This study increases understanding of the role played by web indicators in assessing the web-based impact of research outputs deposited in IRs, and should be of particular interest for a range of stakeholders, including open access and open science advocates, research agencies, library practitioners, repository developers, and website administrators.

URL : Open access publications drive few visits from Google Search results to institutional repositories

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05175-0

Catégories
EN

Altmetric.com or PlumX: Does it matter?

Authors : Behrooz Rasuli, Majid Nabavi

Facing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, medical publishers rose to the occasion, moving to make their full portfolio of COVID-19–related research available to read for free and expediting peer review and production processes. With such a rapid transition from paper submission to publication, however, concerns also arose regarding whether the quality of the research publication process was being affected. This article seeks to document the transformation of medical publishers’ practices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and briefly discuss where they may go from here. For this goal, a literature search was performed in PubMed at several points to identify papers that reported early trends in how medical publishers handled COVID-19 research.

URL : Altmetric.com or PlumX: Does it matter?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1625