When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Association for Information Science and Technology in Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology on 08/01/2015, available online: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23369 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.In theory, articles can attract readers on the social reference sharing site Mendeley before they can attract citations, so Mendeley altmetrics could provide early indications of article impact. This article investigates the influence of time on the number of Mendeley readers of an article through a theoretical discussion and an investigation into the relationship between counts of readers of, and citations to, 4 general library and information science (LIS) journals. For this discipline, it takes about 7 years for articles to attract as many Scopus citations as Mendeley readers, and after this the Spearman correlation between readers and citers is stable at about 0.6 for all years. This suggests that Mendeley readership counts may be useful impact indicators for both newer and older articles. The lack of dates for individual Mendeley article readers and an unknown bias toward more recent articles mean that readership data should be normalized individually by year, however, before making any comparisons between articles published in different years

Tweeting biomedicine: an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature

Data collected by social media platforms have recently been introduced as a new source for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation-based indicators. Data generated from social media activities related to scholarly content can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This paper aims to provide systematic evidence regarding how often Twitter is used to diffuse journal articles in the biomedical and life sciences. The analysis is based on a set of 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science (WoS) and published between 2010 and 2012. The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter. It is shown that, with less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general. The relationship between tweets and WoS citations was examined for each document at the level of journals and specialties. The results show that tweeting behavior varies between journals and specialties and correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework utilizing the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media based metrics and to shed light on the question in how far the number of tweets is a valid metric to measure research impact.Comment: 22 pages, 4 figures, 5 table

Researchers’ use of social network sites : a scoping review

The study is a scoping review of 80 research articles in LIS and related fields (2004-2014) on the use of social network sites by researchers. The results show that social network sites are used as part of scholarly life, yet with disciplinary differences. It is also shown that the area lacks methodological, theoretical and empirical coherence and theoretical stringency. The most salient strands of research (General uptake, Outreach, Special tools/cases, Assessing impact, Practices/new modes of communication) are mapped and ways to improve research in the field are identified. This provides a first step towards a more comprehensive understanding of the roles of social network sites in scholarship

Altmetria: métricas alternativas do impacto da comunicação científica

Describes the state of the art of altmetrics, defined as the study, creation and use of measures related to user interaction with diverse research products through the Social Web – views, downloads, citations, reuse, sharing, tagging, comments, among others. To understand the context where altmetrics arises, we explore the Social Web’s specificities and potentials, and the characteristics of scientific communication. Besides being another step on the evolution of metric studies of information, altmetrics also presents itself as a reaction to the crisis in the current model of scientific publication and evaluation. Through an exploratory search in national and international sources we were able to identify the scientific literature about altmetrics, analysing the authors involved, its concepts, the proposals and trends around the theme, basing our reflection about the development of altmetrics and the acceptance of alternative metrics as tools for scientific evaluation. We note that altmetrics is an expanding area, and its methods complement traditional metrics contributing to a more complete understanding of scientific communication, its actors, processes, products and impacts

Indicadores altmétricos nos periódicos brasileiros em Ciência da Informação: um panorama de pesquisa

This study aims to analyze altmetric indicators in Brazilian journals in Information Science. With descriptive character and qualitative nature, it used, as a method, the literature review and, as a technique, data collection via Altmetric API and Mendeley data with the Webometric Analyst software. As a result, it was found that the journal Transinformação presented the largest number of articles with altmetric data for the entire analyzed corpus, that is, 98.7%, and Brajis the smallest, with 37.8%. The Informação & Sociedade, A1 in Qualis, presented the lowest percentage of altmetric records among the journals in its category, with 61.3%, while the Perspectiva em Ciência da Informação, in the same Qualis stratum, presented a high percentage, with 97 %. The journal Em Questão presented the highest number of altmetric data in the A2 strand of Qualis, with 84.8% of the articles receiving mentions, standing out in relation to the other two journals in this qualification - the Encontros Bibli, with 79.7%, and Informação & Informação, with 73.4%. Of the journals with Qualis B1, the INCID presented the largest number of articles with altmetric data, with 81.8%, closely followed by the RDBCI, which presented 80.9%. The reference manager and the social media platforms that presented altmetric records for the studied journals were: Mendeley, Twitter, Facebook, and Blogs, emphasizing the prevalence of data in Mendeley for all analyzed journals. The article understands that there is no single solution to the challenge of evaluating the results of journals in scientific communication, but understands the importance of digital ways of disseminating and sharing scientific information and that such practices can contribute to the complement of indicators and visibility of journals on referral managers and social media platforms.O presente estudo objetiva analisar os indicadores altmétricos nos periódicos brasileiros em Ciência da Informação. De caráter descritivo e de natureza qualiquantitativa, utilizou, enquanto método, a revisão de literatura e, enquanto técnica, a coleta de dados via API da Altmetric e dados do Mendeley com o software Webometric Analyst. Como resultado, verificou-se que a revista Transinformação apresentou o maior número de artigos com dados altmétricos de todo o corpus analisado, isto é, 98,7%, e a Brajis o menor, com 37,8%. A revista Informação & Sociedade, A1 no Qualis, apresentou o menor percentual de registros altmétricos entre os periódicos de sua categoria, com 61,3%, enquanto a revista Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação, no mesmo estrato Qualis, apresentou percentual alto, com 97%. A revista Em Questão apresentou o maior número de dados altmétricos no estrato A2 do Qualis, com 84,8% dos artigos recebendo menções, se destacando em relação aos outros dois periódicos nesta qualificação – as revistas Encontros Bibli, com 79,7%, e Informação & Informação, com 73,4%. Dos periódicos com Qualis B1, a revista INCID apresentou o maior número de artigos com dados altmétricos, com 81,8%, seguida de perto pela revista RDBCI, que apresentou 80,9%. O gerenciador de referências e as plataformas de mídias sociais que apresentaram registros altmétricos para as revistas estudadas foram: Mendeley, Twitter, Facebook e Blogs, enfatizando a prevalência de dados no Mendeley para todos os periódicos analisados. Considera-se que não existe solução única para o desafio da avaliação de resultados de revistas na comunicação científica, mas entende-se a importância das formas digitais de divulgação e compartilhamento de informação científica e que tais práticas podem contribuir para o complemento de indicadores, e a visibilidade de periódicos em gerenciador de referências e plataformas de mídias sociais

Práticas e percepções da comunidade da Ciência da Informação brasileira sobre plataformas de mídias sociais na comunicação científica : um diálogo com a altmetria

Analisa as práticas e percepções da comunidade da Ciência da Informação (CI) brasileira em plataformas de mídias sociais na comunicação científica a partir da visibilidade dos artigos publicados em periódicos brasileiros e seus atores (Docentes e Discentes) por meio de uma perspectiva altmétrica. O estudo foi caracterizado como qualiquantitativo, pois analisa o comportamento de uma comunidade científica nas mídias sociais, correlacionando dados numéricos e estatísticos (altmétricos) com práticas e percepções de um grupo. Quanto aos procedimentos metodológicos foram empregados a revisão de literatura, com busca em base de dados; aferição de indicadores altmétricos, na utilização dos softwares Altmetric.com e Webometric Analyst e a aplicação de questionário para o levantamento junto a comunidade da CI brasileira. Como principais resultados relata-se que as plataformas de mídias sociais Mendeley, Twitter, Facebook e Blogs foram os provedores de dados que apresentaram dados altmétricos nos artigos de periódicos brasileiros em CI, com a cobertura de dados altmétricos entre 37,8% e 98,7%, tendo o periódico Transinformação a maior cobertura e o Brajis a menor cobertura. O Mendeley foi a plataforma de mídia social que apresentou a maior cobertura de dados altmétricos em todos os 13 periódicos brasileiros da CI analisados, tendo leitores para 2.022 artigos científicos dos 2.724 pesquisados; o Twitter apresentou dados altmétricos nos artigos de oito periódicos da CI, com 166 artigos compartilhados; o Facebook foi a terceira plataforma de mídia social que mostrou dados altmétricos para os periódicos analisados, compartilhando 56 artigos científicos; apenas sete periódicos tiveram dados altmétricos em blogs, com baixos registros de cobertura. Aproximadamente 50% da comunidade da Ciência da Informação brasileira utiliza as plataformas de mídias sociais como meio para promoção e divulgação de resultados de pesquisa, compreendendo os pesquisadores, estudantes de doutorado e professores as ocupações que mais utilizam este meio. A divulgação de informações científicas, interações pessoais e conexões profissionais foram as motivações com maiores porcentagens dentro da comunidade da CI brasileira. Além disso, a ampliação e aprofundamento de temáticas de pesquisa foi o fator mais importante para comentar ou discutir sobre publicações científicas em plataformas de mídias sociais. O número de compartilhamentos em plataformas de mídias sociais foi o tipo de métrica mais indicada pela comunidade da CI. Os autores que receberam registros altmétricos de suas produções, em sua maioria, não costumam acompanhar a atenção online que seus trabalhos receberam em plataformas de mídias sociais e, nesse público, as práticas de disseminação e compartilhamento da produção são realizadas por colegas de profissão e coautores. Considera-se que as menções de artigos dos periódicos brasileiros em CI no Mendeley, Twitter, Facebook e Blogs são indicadores do compartilhamento do artigo e talvez um possível prognóstico para a visibilidade que ele venha a ter. O quantitativo de menções, leitores e compartilhamentos de artigos pode influenciar ou ajudar usuários a encontrar pesquisas com maior visibilidade ou impactantes, considerando sua importância nestes novos canais de cooperação e difusão científica.The research work analyzes practices and perceptions of the Brazilian Library and Information Science community on social media platforms from the visibility of articles published in Brazilian journals and their actors (Teachers and Students) through an altmetric perspective. The study employs a quali-quantitative approach as it analyzes a scientific community interaction through social media, correlating numerical and statistical (altmetrics) data with practices and perceptions of a group. Regarding the methodological procedures were used in the literature review, searching the database; measurement of altmetric indicators, using Altmetric.com and Webometric Analyst software and a survey with the Brazilian LIS community. The main results related to the social media platforms Mendeley, Twitter, Facebook and Blogs were the data providers that showed altmetric data for Brazilian journal articles in LIS, with altmetrics data coverage between 37,8% and 98,7%. The Transinformação journal had the largest coverage and Brajis the smallest. Mendeley was a social media platform that exhibited greater coverage of altmetrics data across all 13 LIS journals analyzed, with readers for 2,022 scientific articles out of the 2724 analysed; Twitter shows altmetric data for LIS journal articles, with 166 shared articles; Facebook was the third social media platform that displayed altmetrics data for the analyzed journals, sharing 56 articles; only seven journals had altmetrics data on blogs, with low coverage records. Approximately 50% of the Brazilian LIS community uses social media platforms as a means to promote and disseminate research results, with researchers, doctoral students and teachers comprising the occupants who use this medium the most. The dissemination of scientific information, personal interactions and professional connections were the motivations with the highest percentages within the Brazilian LIS community. In addition, the expansion and deepining of research topics were the most important factors to promote comments and discussions about scientific publications on social media platforms. The number of shares on social media platforms was the metric type most frequently indicated by the LIS community. The majority of authors whose articles received altmetric scores do not usually follow the online attention their work received on social media platforms, and for them documents dissemination and sharing practices are performed by co-workers and co-authors. The mentions of articles from LIS Brazilian journals in Mendeley, Twitter, Facebook and Blogs may be indicators of the sharing of the article and perhaps a possible prediction of its visibility amongs the community. The number of articles mentions, readers, and shares can influence or help users find research works that are more visible or impactful, given the importance of these new channels for scientific cooperation and diffusion

E-visibility of environmental sciences researchers at the University of South Africa

Abstract : Research e-visibility in theory enables a researcher to establish and maintain a digital research portfolio utilising various research e-profiles on a number of research online communities and platforms. E-visibility embodies the online presence of the researcher and their research, researcher’s discoverability via research e-profiles and the accessibility of research output on online research communities. The rationale for this study has its foundation in the premise that enhancing the e-visibility of a researcher will increase the research and societal impact of the researcher. The development of an e-visibility strategy for the School of Environmental Sciences (SES) at the University of South Africa (Unisa) would be instrumental in enhancing the e-visibility of the researchers. This study aims at establishing guidelines for the development of an e-visibility strategy for SES researchers at Unisa as part of research support via the Library services. Altmetric and bibliometric data of the SES researchers, were collected during the 2-year period (December 2014 and December 2017) and e-visibility surveys were conducted at the beginning of the study (December 2014) and at the end of the study (April 2017) as part of a longitudinal e-visibility study. The data was analysed using statistical methods to ascertain: 1) the SES researchers e-visibility status, 2) the SES researchers’ perceptions about e-visibility, 3) the altmetric-bibliometric correlations (relationships) from the altmetrics sourced from the academic social networking tools and the bibliometrics derived from the citation resources, and 4) identifying e-visibility practices and actions increasing research and societal impact. The results reflected a total increase in online presence, discoverability, and accessibility therefore indicating an overall increase in the actual and perceived e-visibility of the SES researchers. The survey conducted at the end of the study, found that 73% of the SES researchers indicating that their e-visibility increased with online presence being enhanced, 69% were more discoverable and 76% of their research output was more accessible after applying what they learnt during the e-visibility awareness and training...Ph.D. (Information Management