Do altmetrics follow the crowd or does the crowd follow altmetrics?

Alhoori, Hamed; Hamed,; Furuta,; Richard, Richard

doi:10.1109/jcdl.2014.6970193

Cited by 21 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mendeley has been shown to have the highest rates of document coverage among social bookmarking services (Li, Thelwall, & Giustini, ; Weller & Peters, ) as well as among various social media (Costas et al, ; Haustein, Larivière, Thelwall, et al, 2014; Priem, Piwowar, et al, 2012), with 60–80% of articles having at least one reader (Alhoori & Furuta, ; Bar‐Ilan et al, ; Costas et al, ; Hammarfelt, ; Haustein, Peters, Bar‐Ilan, et al, 2014; Haustein & Larivière, ; Haustein, Larivière, Thelwall, et al, 2014; Htoo & Na, ; Mohammadi, Thelwall, Haustein, et al, ; Priem, Piwowar, et al, 2012; Thelwall & Wilson, ; Torres‐Salinas et al, ; Zahedi, Costas, et al, a; Zahedi & Van Eck, ). However, coverage has been shown to vary according to the journal (Bar‐Ilan, ; Li et al, ), field (Htoo & Na, ; Mohammadi & Thelwall, ; Mohammadi, Thelwall, Haustein, et al, ), and data aggregator (Knight, ; Robinson‐García et al, ) studied.…”

Section: Social Media and Research Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature

Sugimoto

Work

Larivière

et al. 2017

Asso for Info Science & Tech

444

322

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social media has become integrated into the fabric of the scholarly communication system in fundamental ways: principally through scholarly use of social media platforms and the promotion of new indicators on the basis of interactions with these platforms. Research and scholarship in this area has accelerated since the coining and subsequent advocacy for altmetrics-that is, research indicators based on social media activity. This review provides an extensive account of the state-of-the art in both scholarly use of social media and altmetrics. The review consists of two main parts: the first examines the use of social media in academia, examining the various functions these platforms have in the scholarly communication process and the factors that affect this use. The second part reviews empirical studies of altmetrics, discussing the various interpretations of altmetrics, data collection and methodological limitations, and differences according to platform. The review ends with a critical discussion of the implications of this transformation in the scholarly communication system.

show abstract

Section: Social Media and Research Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature

Sugimoto

Work

Larivière

et al. 2017

Asso for Info Science & Tech

444

322

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other studies have tried to measure the global impact of altmetrics using compound indicators. Alhoori and Furuta (2014) created the Journal Social Impact, an addition of social networks and media mentions to the articles of a journal divided by the number of items. Hassan and Gillani (2016) proposed the alt-index to measure the social impact of authors.…”

Section: Literature Review: Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proposal of composed altmetric indicators based on prevalence and impact dimensions

Ortega

2020

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to introduce two groups of impact indicators, Weighted Altmetric Impact (WAI) and Inverse Altmetric Impact (IAI). WAI is based in weights from the contributions of each metric to different components or impact dimensions (Principal Component Analysis). IAI is calculated according to the inverse prevalence of each metric in different impact dimensions (TF/IDF). These indicators were tested against 29,500 articles, using metrics from Altmetric.com, PlumX and CED. Altmetric Attention Score (AAScore) was also obtained to compare the resulting scores. Several statistical analyses were applied to value the advantages and limitations of these indicators. Frequency distributions showed that each group of metrics (Scientific Impact, Media Impact and Usage Impact) follows power law trends although with particular patterns. Correlation matrices have depicted associations between metrics and indicators. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) has plotted these interactions to visualize distances between indicators and metrics in each dimension. The 2018 Altmetric Top 100 was used to distinguish differences between rankings from AAScore and the proposed indicators. The paper concludes that the theoretical assumptions of dimensions and prevalence are suitable criteria to design transparent and reproducible impact indicators.

show abstract

“…CiteULike nebo Bibsonomy (Yedid, 2016), případně srovnání s jinými nástroji umožňujícími měření dopadu publikací, např. Facebook nebo Twitter (Alhoori & Furuta, 2014). Přitom bylo zjištěno, že tyto altmetriky v různé míře korelují s řadou citačních metrik, jako např.…”

Section: Přehled Zdrojůunclassified

Testování funkcí citačních manažerů: komparace Citace PRO, Citavi, EndNote, Mendeley a Zotero

Fryš¹,

Kovářová

2020

ProInflow

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Účel -Účelem této komparační analýzy je srovnání rozsahu funkcí nabízených pěti citačními manažery: Citace PRO, Citavi, EndNote, Mendeley a Zotero.Design/metodologie/přístup -Na základě stanovených kritérií a odborných zdrojů k tématu byly definovány analyzované funkce.Ty byly testovány pomocí reálných dat o publikacích, případně jejich plných textů.Výsledky -Výsledky popisují silné a slabé stránky jednotlivých citačních nástrojů v osmi funkčních klastrech. Prezentovány jsou jak funkce obsažené ve všech nástrojích, tak i ty specifické (např. pokročilý informační management v Citavi), příp. specifický přístup k jejich nastavení (např. formáty pro export citací v jednotlivých nástrojích). Na závěr jsou kvantitativně srovnány rozsahy funkcí testovaných citačních manažerů pro srovnání jejich bohatosti celkově i v jednotlivých klastrech pro shrnutí specializací nástrojů na určitou oblast (např. kolaborativní a komunikační funkce v Mendeley).Originalita/hodnota -Rozsah funkcí je základním kritériem pro volbu vhodného nástroje pro konkrétního uživatele i východiskem pro edukaci uživatelů pro efektivní využití citačních manažerů. Cílem článku není srovnání uživatelského pohledu na nástroje a v nich nabízené funkce, pouze deskripce těchto funkcí a jejich rozsahu.

show abstract

Do altmetrics follow the crowd or does the crowd follow altmetrics?

Cited by 21 publications

References 22 publications

Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature

Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature

Proposal of composed altmetric indicators based on prevalence and impact dimensions

Testování funkcí citačních manažerů: komparace Citace PRO, Citavi, EndNote, Mendeley a Zotero

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About