120 research outputs found
Do altmetrics correlate with the quality of papers? A large-scale empirical study based on F1000Prime data
In this study, we address the question whether (and to what extent,
respectively) altmetrics are related to the scientific quality of papers (as
measured by peer assessments). Only a few studies have previously investigated
the relationship between altmetrics and assessments by peers. In the first
step, we analyse the underlying dimensions of measurement for traditional
metrics (citation counts) and altmetrics - by using principal component
analysis (PCA) and factor analysis (FA). In the second step, we test the
relationship between the dimensions and quality of papers (as measured by the
post-publication peer-review system of F1000Prime assessments) - using
regression analysis. The results of the PCA and FA show that altmetrics operate
along different dimensions, whereas Mendeley counts are related to citation
counts, and tweets form a separate dimension. The results of the regression
analysis indicate that citation-based metrics and readership counts are
significantly more related to quality, than tweets. This result on the one hand
questions the use of Twitter counts for research evaluation purposes and on the
other hand indicates potential use of Mendeley reader counts
Climate Change Research in View of Bibliometrics
This bibliometric study of a large publication set dealing with research on
climate change aims at mapping the relevant literature from a bibliometric
perspective and presents a multitude of quantitative data: (1) The growth of
the overall publication output as well as (2) of some major subfields, (3) the
contributing journals and countries as well as their citation impact, and (4) a
title word analysis aiming to illustrate the time evolution and relative
importance of specific research topics. The study is based on 222,060 papers
published between 1980 and 2014. The total number of papers shows a strong
increase with a doubling every 5-6 years. Continental biomass related research
is the major subfield, closely followed by climate modeling. Research dealing
with adaptation, mitigation, risks, and vulnerability of global warming is
comparatively small, but their share of papers increased exponentially since
2005. Research on vulnerability and on adaptation published the largest
proportion of very important papers. Research on climate change is
quantitatively dominated by the USA, followed by the UK, Germany, and Canada.
The citation-based indicators exhibit consistently that the UK has produced the
largest proportion of high impact papers compared to the other countries
(having published more than 10,000 papers). The title word analysis shows that
the term climate change comes forward with time. Furthermore, the term impact
arises and points to research dealing with the various effects of climate
change. Finally, the term model and related terms prominently appear
independent of time, indicating the high relevance of climate modeling.Comment: 40 pages, 6 figures, and 4 table
Networks of reader and country status: An analysis of Mendeley reader statistics
The number of papers published in journals indexed by the Web of Science core
collection is steadily increasing. In recent years, nearly two million new
papers were published each year; somewhat more than one million papers when
primary research papers are considered only (articles and reviews are the
document types where primary research is usually reported or reviewed).
However, who reads these papers? More precisely, which groups of researchers
from which (self-assigned) scientific disciplines and countries are reading
these papers? Is it possible to visualize readership patterns for certain
countries, scientific disciplines, or academic status groups? One popular
method to answer these questions is a network analysis. In this study, we
analyze Mendeley readership data of a set of 1,133,224 articles and 64,960
reviews with publication year 2012 to generate three different kinds of
networks: (1) The network based on disciplinary affiliations of Mendeley
readers contains four groups: (i) biology, (ii) social science and humanities
(including relevant computer science), (iii) bio-medical sciences, and (iv)
natural science and engineering. In all four groups, the category with the
addition "miscellaneous" prevails. (2) The network of co-readers in terms of
professional status shows that a common interest in papers is mainly shared
among PhD students, Master's students, and postdocs. (3) The country network
focusses on global readership patterns: a group of 53 nations is identified as
core to the scientific enterprise, including Russia and China as well as two
thirds of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development)
countries.Comment: 26 pages, 6 figures (also web-based startable), and 2 table
- …