Cross-metric compatability and inconsistencies of altmetrics

Meschede, Christine; Siebenlist, Tobias

doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2674-1

Cited by 45 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the fact that using data about only one journal could not be representative, their results were consistent with previous studies, though with higher proportions. Thus, for example, PlumX, Lagotto and Mendeley reached a coverage above 90%, while Altmetric.com obtained 61% and CED 7% -a percentage much greater than previous studies (Zahedi et al, 2015a;Ortega, 2018b;Meschede;Siebenlist, 2018). A similar interpretation could be made with the high number of tweeted papers (57%) in Altmetric.com, much higher than the 38% of Ortega (2018) and the 36% of Meschede and Siebenlist (2018).…”

Section: Comparativesupporting

confidence: 51%

“…Thus, for example, PlumX, Lagotto and Mendeley reached a coverage above 90%, while Altmetric.com obtained 61% and CED 7% -a percentage much greater than previous studies (Zahedi et al, 2015a;Ortega, 2018b;Meschede;Siebenlist, 2018). A similar interpretation could be made with the high number of tweeted papers (57%) in Altmetric.com, much higher than the 38% of Ortega (2018) and the 36% of Meschede and Siebenlist (2018). The last study now comparing altmetric aggregators was published by Bar- Ilan et al (2019).…”

Section: Comparativementioning

confidence: 58%

“…In 2018, the coverage of news increased to the mean of 4.2% (Repiso et al, 2019;Dardas et al, 2018;Torres-Salinas et al, 2018a;Ortega, 2019;Robinson-García et al, 2019). PlumX showed more continued growth, ranging from 0.1% in 2016 (Meschede;Siebenlist, 2018;Torres-Salinas et al, 2017a;2017b) to 4% in 2019(Gorraiz et al, 2019. According to CED, Ortega's papers show a coverage of 0.2% in 2017 (Ortega, 2018b) and of 0.7% in 2018 (Ortega, 2019), considerably lower than PlumX and Altmetric.com, which have similar percentages.…”

Section: Newsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This percentage descended (10.4%) when they repeated the same study one year later . From 2016 to 2019, coverage increases considerably to nearly 100% (Meschede;Siebenlist, 2018;Costas, 2018;Ortega, 2018a;Ortega, 2019;Gorraiz et al, 2019). The only exception is Torres-Salinas et al, (2017a), who obtained a coverage of 77.7% because their sample was limited to books.…”

Section: Coveragementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Not until 2018 were there more systematic comparisons between altmetric aggregators. Meschede and Siebenlist (2018), with data from September 2016, analysed 50,000 dois from WoS in Altmetric.com and PlumX. They found that PlumX almost covered 100% (91%), while Altmetric.com only collected 38% of the sample.…”

Section: Comparativementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Altmetrics data providers: A meta-analysis review of the coverage of metrics and publication

Ortega¹

2020

EPI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper is to review the current and most relevant literature on the use of altmetric providers since 2012. This review is supported by a meta-analysis of the coverage and metric counts obtained by more than 100 publications that have used these bibliographic platforms for altmetric studies. The article is the most comprehensive analysis of altmetric data providers (Lagotto, Altmetric.com, ImpactStory, Mendeley, PlumX, Crossref Event Data) and explores the coverage of publications, social media and events from a longitudinal view. Disciplinary differences were also analysed. The results show that most of the studies are based on Altmetric.com data. This provider is the service that captures most mentions from social media sites, blogs and news outlets. PlumX has better coverage, counting more Mendeley readers, but capturing fewer events. CED has a special coverage of mentions from Wikipedia, while Lagotto and ImpactStory are becoming disused products because of their limited reach.

show abstract

Section: Comparativesupporting

confidence: 51%

Section: Comparativementioning

confidence: 58%

Section: Newsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Coveragementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparativementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Altmetrics data providers: A meta-analysis review of the coverage of metrics and publication

Ortega¹

2020

EPI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The stability of Twitter metrics: A study on unavailable Twitter mentions of scientific publications

Fang

Dudek

Costas

2020

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the stability of Twitter counts of scientific publications over time. For this, we conducted an analysis of the availability statuses of over 2.6 million Twitter mentions received by the 1,154 most tweeted scientific publications recorded by Altmetric.com up to October 2017. Results show that of the Twitter mentions for these highly tweeted publications, about 14.3% have become unavailable by April 2019. Deletion of tweets by users is the main reason for unavailability, followed by suspension and protection of Twitter user accounts. This study proposes two measures for describing the Twitter dissemination structures of publications: Degree of Originality (i.e., the proportion of original tweets received by a paper) and Degree of Concentration (i.e., the degree to which retweets concentrate on a single original tweet). Twitter metrics of publications with relatively low Degree of Originality and relatively high Degree of Concentration are observed to be at greater risk of becoming unstable due to the potential disappearance of their Twitter mentions. In light of these results, we emphasize the importance of paying attention to the potential risk of unstable Twitter counts, and the significance of identifying the different Twitter dissemination structures when studying the Twitter metrics of scientific publications.

show abstract

Bibliometric and altmetric analysis of research relating to antiphospholipid syndrome based on VOS viewer (2011–2021)

Yin

et al. 2023

Clin Rheumatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross-metric compatability and inconsistencies of altmetrics

Cited by 45 publications

References 22 publications

Altmetrics data providers: A meta-analysis review of the coverage of metrics and publication

Altmetrics data providers: A meta-analysis review of the coverage of metrics and publication

The stability of Twitter metrics: A study on unavailable Twitter mentions of scientific publications

Bibliometric and altmetric analysis of research relating to antiphospholipid syndrome based on VOS viewer (2011–2021)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About