Unwrap Citation, Altmetric, and Mendeley Status of Highly Cited Articles in the Top-tier Library and Information Science Journals

Citation count is a quantitative method of measuring the impact of a research work. A higher citation count may indicate that the research work receives more attention among peers which could mean that the research contributes value to that discipline of literature. Citation count sums the number of times that an article is referenced by other authors. Tracking citations is important; however, the citation impact only tells a part of the story from academic researchers who conduct and publish research works. The impact of the publication on leisure readers and non-publishing readers are ignored. Furthermore, it is difficult to set a standard impact measurement across disciplines. Research showed that articles in the hard sciences (e.g. chemistry, biology) tends to gain more citations than in soft sciences (e.g. social science, psychology) (Harzing, 2010; Nederhof, 2006). Even in the same field, articles that focus on praxis often receive less citation count than those that focus on theories. However, articles that focus on practice are valuable, and should be a part of the academic landscape (Akers, 2017). Finally, measuring the value of a newly published article with citation count can be difficult, since citations grow gradually over the years. The emergence of electronic publications and web technology allows people to view a research output by the amount of attention it receives. Web-based tools such as F1000, PLos, Altmetric, Plum Analytics, CiteULike, and Mendeley collect a publication’s output through a variety of online sources. These usage statistics such as number of views, downloads, mentions, etc., disclose the popularity or influence of a publication to some degree (Zahedi, Costas, & Wouters, 2014). Mendeley readership — a feature of Mendeley Web powered by Scopus —allows researchers to monitor the impact as well as the usage of their scholarly work (Bonasio, 2014). Altmetric attention score (AAS) generates a research impact score by weighting the attention that an article receives from social media, blogs, news, and other online sources. AAS presents a quick, UNWRAP CITATIONS, ALTMETRIC SCORE, AND MENDELEY READERSHIP STATUS 3 multifaceted way to demonstrate the value of a research that is arguable more robust than citation count (Huang, Wang, & Wu, 2018). Since works in the arts and humanities typically do not receive as many citations as other disciplines, the traditional bibliometric may not be a good indicator of research impact — AAS is more considerable in fields that measure researcher and reader behaviors like searching, reading, and sharing (Cho, 2017). As an increasing amount scholars and researchers in academic disciplines create their online research profile on academic network (e.g. Academia, ResearchGate, Linkedln, Mendeley) or share their research via social media, the online attention has become a valuable aspect and a non-delay algorism to measure research impacts (Aharony et al., 2019; Garcovich, Ausina Marquez, & Adobes Martin, 2019)

In their own image? : a comparison of doctoral students' and faculty members' referencing behavior

This article compares doctoral students' and faculty members' referencing behavior through the analysis of a large corpus of scientific articles. It shows that doctoral students tend to cite more documents per article than faculty members, and that the literature they cite is, on average, more recent. It also demonstrates that doctoral students cite a larger proportion of conference proceedings and journal articles than faculty members and faculty members are more likely to self‐cite and cite theses than doctoral students. Analysis of the impact of cited journals indicates that in health research, faculty members tend to cite journals with slightly lower impact factors whereas in social sciences and humanities, faculty members cite journals with higher impact factors. Finally, it provides evidence that, in every discipline, faculty members tend to cite a higher proportion of clinical/applied research journals than doctoral students. This study contributes to the understanding of referencing patterns and age stratification in academia. Implications for understanding the information‐seeking behavior of academics are discussed

The Impact of Heterogeneous Shared Leadership in Scientific Teams

Leadership is evolving dynamically from an individual endeavor to shared efforts. This paper aims to advance our understanding of shared leadership in scientific teams. We define three kinds of leaders, junior (10-15), mid (15-20), and senior (20+) based on career age. By considering the combinations of any two leaders, we distinguish shared leadership as heterogeneous when leaders are in different age cohorts and homogeneous when leaders are in the same age cohort. Drawing on 1,845,351 CS, 254,039 Sociology, and 193,338 Business teams with two leaders in the OpenAlex dataset, we identify that heterogeneous shared leadership brings higher citation impact for teams than homogeneous shared leadership. Specifically, when junior leaders are paired with senior leaders, it significantly increases team citation ranking by 1-2%, in comparison with two leaders of similar age. We explore the patterns between homogeneous leaders and heterogeneous leaders from team scale, expertise composition, and knowledge recency perspectives. Compared with homogeneous leaders, heterogeneous leaders are more adaptive in large teams, have more diverse expertise, and trace both the newest and oldest references

Researchers’ publication patterns and their use for author disambiguation

Over the recent years, we are witnessing an increase of the need for advanced bibliometric indicators on individual researchers and research groups, for which author disambiguation is needed. Using the complete population of university professors and researchers in the Canadian province of Québec (N=13,479), of their papers as well as the papers authored by their homonyms, this paper provides evidence of regularities in researchers’ publication patterns. It shows how these patterns can be used to automatically assign papers to individual and remove papers authored by their homonyms. Two types of patterns were found: 1) at the individual researchers’ level and 2) at the level of disciplines. On the whole, these patterns allow the construction of an algorithm that provides assignation information on at least one paper for 11,105 (82.4%) out of all 13,479 researchers—with a very low percentage of false positives (3.2%)

What do chemists cite? A five-year analysis of references cited in American Chemical Society journal articles.

This study analyzes references cited by articles published in ten American Chemical Society journals between 2011 and 2015. The median age of references was 6 years. On average, 44% of the references were five years old or younger, and only 11% were more than 20 years old. There appears to be a modest increase in references to older sources, possibly due to the increased availability of older articles online. References tended to be concentrated on a small core of journals. Overall, 20% of the journals cited accounted for 80% of the references. However, there was considerable variation among subdisciplines

What do chemists cite? A five-year analysis of references cited in American Chemical Society journal articles.

This study analyzes references cited by articles published in ten American Chemical Society journals between 2011 and 2015. The median age of references was 6 years. On average, 44% of the references were five years old or younger, and only 11% were more than 20 years old. There appears to be a modest increase in references to older sources, possibly due to the increased availability of older articles online. References tended to be concentrated on a small core of journals. Overall, 20% of the journals cited accounted for 80% of the references. However, there was considerable variation among subdisciplines

What do chemists cite? A five-year analysis of references cited in American Chemical Society journal articles

This study analyzes references cited by articles published in ten American Chemical Society journals between 2011 and 2015. The median age of references was 6 years. On average, 44 percent of the references were five years old or younger, and only 11 percent were more than 20 years old. There appears to be a modest increase in references to older sources, possibly due to the increased availability of older articles online. References tended to be concentrated on a small core of journals. Overall, 20 percent of the journals cited accounted for 80 percent of the references. However, there was considerable variation among sub-disciplines

What do chemists cite? A five-year analysis of references cited in American Chemical Society journal articles

This study analyzes references cited by articles published in ten American Chemical Society journals between 2011 and 2015. The median age of references was 6 years. On average, 44 percent of the references were five years old or younger, and only 11 percent were more than 20 years old. There appears to be a modest increase in references to older sources, possibly due to the increased availability of older articles online. References tended to be concentrated on a small core of journals. Overall, 20 percent of the journals cited accounted for 80 percent of the references. However, there was considerable variation among sub-disciplines

How to accomplish a highly cited paper in the tourism, leisure and hospitality field

This paper identifies the main factors that affect the citation rate of an article published in the tourism, leisure and hospitality field. Using several regression techniques, it has been identified that the number of references for an article, the reputation of the main author, and obtaining early citations have a major impact on a document’s citation rate. As well as this, by means of a quantitative–qualitative analysis (fsQCA), the most efficient combinations of factors that influence the number of citations received have also been identified. This paper is useful for researchers, editors and readers interested in improving the impact of their researchS