Do articles in open access journals have more frequent altmetric activity than articles in subscription-based journals? An investigation of the research output of Finnish universities

Scientific articles available in Open Access (OA) have been found to attract more citations and online attention to the extent that it has become common to speak about OA Altmetrics Advantage. This research investigates how the OA Altmetrics Advantage holds for a specific case of research articles, namely the research outputs from universities in Finland. Furthermore, this research examines disciplinary and platform specific differences in that (dis)advantage. The new methodological approaches developed in this research focus on relative visibility, i.e. how often articles in OA journals receive at least one mention on the investigated online platforms, and relative receptivity, i.e. how frequently articles in OA journals gain mentions in comparison to articles in subscription-based journals. The results show significant disciplinary and platform specific differences in the OA advantage, with articles in OA journals within for instance veterinary sciences, social and economic geography and psychology receiving more citations and attention on social media platforms, while the opposite was found for articles in OA journals within medicine and health sciences. The results strongly support field- and platform-specific considerations when assessing the influence of journal OA status on altmetrics. The new methodological approaches used in this research will serve future comparative research into OA advantage of scientific articles over time and between countries.</p

Avoiding obscure topics and generalising findings produces higher impact research

Much academic research is never cited and may be rarely read, indicating wasted effort from the authors, referees and publishers. One reason that an article could be ignored is that its topic is, or appears to be, too obscure to be of wide interest, even if excellent scholarship produced it. This paper reports a word frequency analysis of 874,411 English article titles from 18 different Scopus natural, formal, life and health sciences categories 2009-2015 to assess the likelihood that research on obscure (rarely researched) topics is less cited. In all categories examined, unusual words in article titles associate with below average citation impact research. Thus, researchers considering obscure topics may wish to reconsider, generalise their study, or to choose a title that reflects the wider lessons that can be drawn. Authors should also consider including multiple concepts and purposes within their titles in order to attract a wider audience

Long term productivity and collaboration in information science

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Springer in Scientometrics on 02/07/2016, available online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2061-8 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Funding bodies have tended to encourage collaborative research because it is generally more highly cited than sole author research. But higher mean citation for collaborative articles does not imply collaborative researchers are in general more research productive. This article assesses the extent to which research productivity varies with the number of collaborative partners for long term researchers within three Web of Science subject areas: Information Science & Library Science, Communication and Medical Informatics. When using the whole number counting system, researchers who worked in groups of 2 or 3 were generally the most productive, in terms of producing the most papers and citations. However, when using fractional counting, researchers who worked in groups of 1 or 2 were generally the most productive. The findings need to be interpreted cautiously, however, because authors that produce few academic articles within a field may publish in other fields or leave academia and contribute to society in other ways

The state of altmetrics: a tenth anniversary celebration

Altmetric’s mission is to help others understand the influence of research online.We collate what people are saying about published research in sources such as the mainstream media, policy documents, social networks, blogs, and other scholarly and non-scholarly forums to provide a more robust picture of the influence and reach of scholarly work. Altmetric works with some of the biggest publishers, funders, businesses and institutions around the world to deliver this data in an accessible and reliable format.ContentsAltmetrics, Ten Years Later, Euan Adie (Altmetric (founder) & Overton)Reflections on Altmetrics, Gemma Derrick (University of Lancaster), Fereshteh Didegah (Karolinska Institutet & Simon Fraser University), Paul Groth (University of Amsterdam), Cameron Neylon (Curtin University), Jason Priem (Our Research), Shenmeng Xu (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Zohreh Zahedi (Leiden University)Worldwide Awareness and Use of Altmetrics, Yin-Leng Theng (Nanyang Technological University)Leveraging Machine Learning on Altmetrics Big Data, Saeed-Ul Hassan (Information Technology University), Naif R. Aljohani (King Abdulaziz University), Timothy D. Bowman (Wayne State University)Altmetrics as Social-Spatial Sensors, Vanash M. Patel (West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust), Robin Haunschild (Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research), Lutz Bornmann (Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society)Altmetric’s Fable of the Hare and the Tortoise, Mike Taylor (Digital Science)The Future of Altmetrics: A Community Vision, Liesa Ross (Altmetric), Stacy Konkiel (Altmetric)https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/170 Merit, Expertise and Measuremen

Pot, kettle: Nonliteral titles aren’t (natural) science

© 2020 The Author. Published by MIT Press. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00078Researchers may be tempted to attract attention through poetic titles for their publications, but would this be mistaken in some fields? Whilst poetic titles are known to be common in medicine, it is not clear whether the practice is widespread elsewhere. This article investigates the prevalence of poetic expressions in journal article titles 1996-2019 in 3.3 million articles from all 27 Scopus broad fields. Expressions were identified by manually checking all phrases with at least 5 words that occurred at least 25 times, finding 149 stock phrases, idioms, sayings, literary allusions, film names and song titles or lyrics. The expressions found are most common in the social sciences and the humanities. They are also relatively common in medicine, but almost absent from engineering and the natural and formal sciences. The differences may reflect the less hierarchical and more varied nature of the social sciences and humanities, where interesting titles may attract an audience. In engineering, natural science and formal science fields, authors should take extra care with poetic expressions, in case their choice is judged inappropriate. This includes interdisciplinary research overlapping these areas. Conversely, reviewers of interdisciplinary research involving the social sciences should be more tolerant of poetic licens

Webometrics benefitting from web mining? An investigation of methods and applications of two research fields

Webometrics and web mining are two fields where research is focused on quantitative analyses of the web. This literature review outlines definitions of the fields, and then focuses on their methods and applications. It also discusses the potential of closer contact and collaboration between them. A key difference between the fields is that webometrics has focused on exploratory studies, whereas web mining has been dominated by studies focusing on development of methods and algorithms. Differences in type of data can also be seen, with webometrics more focused on analyses of the structure of the web and web mining more focused on web content and usage, even though both fields have been embracing the possibilities of user generated content. It is concluded that research problems where big data is needed can benefit from collaboration between webometricians, with their tradition of exploratory studies, and web miners, with their tradition of developing methods and algorithms

Which Type of Research is Cited More Often in Wikipedia? A Case Study of PubMed Research

This study examines the characteristics of medical articles cited in Wikipedia and compares them with a sample of medical articles not cited in the platform. The aim is to determine the reasons why some articles are selected as reliable sources for Wikipedia and others are not. The characteristics studied are document type, open access status of article, article topic, article F1000 class and F1000 count, article tweet count, and article news count. The findings show a document type similarity for both cited and uncited sets of articles, with articles, reviews and editorial materials being more visible in both sets. While the articles cover a broad range of topics, the top three topics are the same in both sets. The results also reveal that Wikipedia favors OA articles, although a large number of cited articles are non-OA. Finally, significant, although weak correlations are found between Wiki citation counts and F1000, tweet and news counts. While F1000 and tweet counts correlate negatively with Wikipedia citation counts, news counts show a positive correlation, although the weakest compared to the other correlations