Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 116, Issue 1, pp 435–447 | Cite as

Why do some research articles receive more online attention and higher altmetrics? Reasons for online success according to the authors

  • Kim Holmberg
  • Julia Vainio
Article

Abstract

Recent altmetrics research has started to investigate the meaning of altmetrics and whether altmetrics could reveal something about the attention or impact connected to research. This research continues this line of investigations and studies reasons for why some research has received significant online attention in one or both of two social media services; Twitter or Mendeley. This research investigated Finnish researchers’ opinions about the reasons for why their research had received significant online attention and if the attention received could reflect scientific or societal impact of their research. Furthermore it was studied whether the authors of the papers with significant online attention actively followed how their papers were shared or discussed online and if the authors thought that the online attention increased either the scientific or societal impact of their work. Based on the findings it can be stated that the level of online attention received is a sum of many factors and that there are also specific differences between the platforms where the attention has been received. For the articles that had received significant attention on Mendeley the reasons for that attention were more often seen as due to an academic audience, while the situation was reverse on Twitter, with the majority of reasons for the attention being linked to a wider audience. Similar trend could be seen when asked about whether the online attention could reflect scientific or societal impact, although a clear consensus about whether online attention could reflect any type of impact at all could not be reached.

Keywords

Altmetrics Online attention Twitter Mendeley Impact Scientific impact Societal impact 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The present study is an extended version of an article (Holmberg and Vainio 2017) presented at the 16th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Wuhan (China), 16–20 October 2017). The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

References

  1. Didegah, F., Bowman, T. D., & Holmberg, K. (2016). Increasing our understanding of altmetrics: Identifying factors that are driving both citation and altmetric counts. iConference, 2016, Philadephia, USA, 20–23 March.Google Scholar
  2. Erdt, M., Nagarajan, A., Sin, S.-E. J., & Theng, Y.-L. (2016). Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research on social media. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1117–1166.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2077-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Evans, P., & Krauthammer, M. (2011). Exploring the use of social media to measure journal article impact. Annual Symposium Proceedings/AMIA Symposium, 2011, 374–81. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3243242/.
  4. Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0127830.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., & Lariviére, V. (2014). Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 656–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Holmberg, K., & Vainio, J. (2017). Why do some research articles receive more online attention? Reasons for online success as measured with altmetrics. In: Proceedings of ISSI 2017The 16th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics. Hubei: Wuhan University.Google Scholar
  7. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ke, Q., Ahn, Y.-Y., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). A Systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter. Digital Libraries; Physics and Society. http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.06229.
  9. Mislove, A., Lehmann, S., Ahn, Y., Onnela, J., & Rosenquist, J. N. (2011). Understanding the demographics of Twitter users. Artificial Intelligence, 554–557. Accessed on March 19, 2018, at http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/2816/3234.
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., & Lariviére, 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.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Priem, J. (2014). Altmetrics. In B. Cronin & C. R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Richards, L. (1991). Book reviews: Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools, Renata Tesch, London, Falmer Press, 1990. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 27(1), 128–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Robinson-Garcia, N., Costas, R., Isett, K., Melkers, J., & Hicks, D. (2017). The unbearable emptiness of tweeting—About journal articles. PLoS ONE, 12(8), e0183551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ruano, J., Aguilar-Luque, M., Gómez-Garcia, F., Mellado, P. A., Gay-Mimbrera, J., Carmona-Fernandez, P. J., et al. (2018). The differential impact of scientific quality, bibliometric factors, and social media activity on the influence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses about psoriasis. PLoS ONE, 13(1), e0191124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Semertzidis, K., Pitoura, E., & Tsaparas, P. (2013). How people describe themselves on Twitter. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD workshop on databases and social networksDBSocial’13 (pp. 25–30).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2484702.2484708.
  17. Shuai, X., Pepe, A., Bollen, J., & Ouzounis, C. A. (2012). How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: Article downloads, twitter mentions, and citations. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e47523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thelwall, M. (2016). Interpreting correlations between citation counts and other indicators. Scientometrics, 108(1), 337–347.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1973-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tuomi, J., & Sarajärvi, A. (2009). Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi. Helsinki: Tammi.Google Scholar
  21. Uddin, M. M., Imran, M., & Sajjad, H. (2014). Understanding types of users on Twitter. arXiv Preprint, 6. http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.1335.
  22. Wang, J., Alotaibi, N. M., Ibrahim, G. M., Kulkarni, A. V., & Lozano, A. M. (2017). The spectrum of altmetrics in neurosurgery: The top 100 “trending” articles in neurosurgical journals. World Neurosurgery, 103, 883–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2289192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library Science.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20661.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Unit for the Sociology of EducationUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations