Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks
Corresponding Author
Fereshteh Didegah
Danish Centre for Studies in Research & Research Policy, Department of Political Science & Government, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
Scholarly Communication Lab, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Mike Thelwall
Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton, WV1 1LY UK
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Fereshteh Didegah
Danish Centre for Studies in Research & Research Policy, Department of Political Science & Government, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
Scholarly Communication Lab, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Mike Thelwall
Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton, WV1 1LY UK
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Counts of tweets and Mendeley user libraries have been proposed as altmetric alternatives to citation counts for the impact assessment of articles. Although both have been investigated to discover whether they correlate with article citations, it is not known whether users tend to tweet or save (in Mendeley) the same kinds of articles that they cite. In response, this article compares pairs of articles that are tweeted, saved to a Mendeley library, or cited by the same user, but possibly a different user for each source. The study analyzes 1,131,318 articles published in 2012, with minimum tweeted (10), saved to Mendeley (100), and cited (10) thresholds. The results show surprisingly minor overall overlaps between the three phenomena. The importance of journals for Twitter and the presence of many bots at different levels of activity suggest that this site has little value for impact altmetrics. The moderate differences between patterns of saving and citation suggest that Mendeley can be used for some types of impact assessments, but sensitivity is needed for underlying differences.
References
- Blondel, V.D., Guillaume, J.L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), P10008.
- Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2016). Overlay maps based on Mendeley data: The use of altmetrics for readership networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(12), 3064–3072.
- Boyack, K.W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Cocitation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404.
- Caron, E., & Van Eck, N.J. (2014). Large scale author name disambiguation using rule-based scoring and clustering. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, 79–86.
- Didegah, F., Bowman, T.D., & Holmberg, K. (2017, in press). On the differences between citations and altmetrics: An investigation of factors driving altmetrics vs. citations for Finnish articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
- Didegah, F., Bowman, T., Bowman, S., & Hartley, J. (2016). Comparing the characteristics of highly cited titles and highly alted titles. International Conference of Science and Technology Indicators, Valencia, Spain. September 14–16. http://ocs.editorial.upv.es/index.php/STI2016/STI2016/paper/viewFile/4543/2327
- Haustein, S. (2012). Multidimensional Journal Evaluation: Analyzing Scientific Periodicals beyond the Impact Factor. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur: 143–147.
- Haustein, S., et al. (2016). Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot” accounts on Twitter. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(1), 232–238.
- Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Lariviére, V. (2015). Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly articles: the effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS One, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120495
-
Haustein, S.,
Larivière, V.,
Thelwall, M.,
Amyot, D., &
Peters, I. (2014). Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ? IT-Information Technology, 56(5), 207–215.
10.1515/itit-2014-1048 Google Scholar
- Haustein, S., et al. (2016). “Identifying Twitter user communities”. 3am conference. Bucharest, Romania, September 28–29.
-
Jung, H.,
Lee, K., &
Song, M. (2016). Examining characteristics of traditional and Twitter citation. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 1, 6.
10.3389/frma.2016.00006 Google Scholar
- Kraker, P., Körner, C., Jack, K., & Granitzer, M. (2012). Harnessing user library statistics for research evaluation and knowledge domain visualization. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 1017–1024). Lyon, France, 16–20 April.
- Kraker, P., Schlögl, C., Jack, K., & Lindstaedt, S. (2015). Visualization of co-savedership patterns from an online reference management system. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 169–182.
- Marshakova, I. (1973). System of document connections based on references. Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya Seriya 2-Informatsionnye Protsessy I Sistemy, (6), 3–8.
- Mas-Bleda, A., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K. & Aguillo, I.F. (2014). Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web? Scientometrics, 101(1), 337–356.
- Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(8), 1627–1638.
- Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M. & Kousha, K. (2016). Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(5), 1198–1209.
- Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015). Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(9), 1832–1846.
- Newman, M.E., & Girvan, M. (2004). Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical Review E, 69(2), 026113.
- Neylon, C. (2014). Altmetrics: What are they good for. PLOS Opens, http://blogs.plos.org/opens/2014/10/03/altmetrics-what-are-they-good-for/.
-
Priem, J., &
Costello, K.L. (2010). How and why scholars cite on Twitter. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIST 2010) ( 1–4) doi:10.1002/meet.14504701201
10.1002/meet.14504701201 Google Scholar
- Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2011). Altmetrics: a manifesto. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/
- Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269.
- Small, H. (1981). The relationship of information science to the social sciences: A co-citation analysis. Information processing & management, 17(1), 39–50.
-
Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 50(9), 799.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:9<799::AID-ASI9>3.0.CO;2-G Google Scholar
- Sud, P. & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131–1143.
- Sugimoto, C.R., Work, S., Larivière, V., & Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2037–2062.
- Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C.R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS One, 8(5), e64841. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064841
- Thelwall, M. & Sud, P. (2016). Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(6), 3036–3050.
- Thelwall, M. Tsou, A., Weingart, S., Holmberg, K., & Haustein, S. (2013). Tweeting links to academic articles. Cybermetrics, 17(1), http://cybermetrics.cindoc.csic.es/articles/v17i1p1.html.
- Waltman, L., van Eck, N.J., van Leeuwen, T.N., Visser, M.S., & van Raan, A.F. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: An empirical analysis. Scientometrics, 87(3), 467–481.
- Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N.J. (2012). A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2378–2392.
- White, H.D., & McCain, K.W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American society for information science, 49(4), 327–355.
