Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 119, Issue 2, pp 941–958 | Cite as

Altmetrics, alternative indicators for Web of Science Communication studies journals

  • Rafael RepisoEmail author
  • Antonio Castillo-Esparcia
  • Daniel Torres-Salinas
Article

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyse the occurrence of communication journals in the so-called Altmetrics (Facebook, Mendeley, Twitter, etc.) and how these indicators relate to each other and to the citations received. To this end, we study how the articles published by the Journal Citation Reports of the Web of Science for the 5-year period 2013–2017 on the Altmetric.com platform are registered. The results show how only a few platforms have significant coverage for studying the whole and in the case of Mendeley and Twitter, the coverage is superior to the citations offered by Web of Science. There is a proven relationship between citations and their occurrence on social media and platforms and their intensity varies by product. In general, the journals with the highest number of citations (Journal of Computer Mediated, Journal of Communication or New Media & Society) with few exceptions (Continuum) stand out.

Keywords

Altmetrics Scientific journals Scientometrics Webmetrics Social media 

References

  1. American Psychological Asociation. (2017). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  2. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Casino, G. (2018). Cita periodística: Impacto de las revistas y los artículos científicos en la prensa generalista. El Profesional de la Información, 27(3), 692–697.  https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2018.may.22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cho, J. (2017). A comparative study of the impact of Korean research articles in four academic fields using altmetrics. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 18(1), 38–51.  https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-02-2016-0005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chung, C. J., & Park, H. W. (2012). Web visibility of scholars in media and communication journals. Scientometrics, 93(1), 207–215.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0707-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colledge, L. (2017). Snowball metrics recipe book (3 ed.). Amsterdam: Snowball Metrics Program Partners. http://www.snowballmetrics.com/wp-content/uploads/snowball-recipe-book_HR.pdf.
  7. de Mey, M. (1992). The cognitive paradigm: An integrated understanding of scientific development. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Delgado-López-Cózar, E., & Martín-Martín, A. (2016). Thomson Reuters utiliza altmétricas: Usage counts para los artículos indizados en la Web of Science. Anuario ThinkEPI, 10, 209–221.  https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2016.43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diga, M., & Kelleher, T. (2009). Social media use, perceptions of decision-making power, and public relations roles. Public Relations Review, 35(4), 440–442.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eyrich, N., Padman, M. L., & Sweetser, K. D. (2008). PR practitioners’ use of social media tools and communication technology. Public Relations Review, 34(4), 412–414.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.09.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of medical Internet Research, 13(4), e123.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galligan, F., & Dyas-Correia, S. (2013). Altmetrics: Rethinking the way we measure. Serials Review, 39(1), 56–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2013.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gastwirth, J. L. (1972). The estimation of the Lorenz curve and Gini index. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 54(3), 306–316.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gumpenberger, C., Glänzel, W., & Gorraiz, J. (2016). The ecstasy and the agony of the altmetric score. Scientometrics, 108(2), 977–982.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1991-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., Holmberg, K., Tsou, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (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.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holmberg, K., & Woo, H. (2018). An altmetric investigation of the online visibility of South Korea-based scientific journals. Scientometrics, 117(1), 603–613.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2874-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Khan, G. F., Lee, S., Park, J. Y., & Park, H. W. (2016). Theories in communication science: A structural analysis using webometrics and social network approach. Scientometrics, 108(2), 531–557.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1822-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Langston, M., & Tyler, J. (2004). Linking to journal articles in an online teaching environment: The persistent link, DOI, and OpenURL. Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 51–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lauf, E. (2005). National diversity of major international journals in the field of communication. Journal of Communication, 55(1), 139–151.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02663.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leiner, D. J., & Quiring, O. (2008). What interactivity means to the user essential insights into and a scale for perceived interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1), 127–155.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01434.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leydesdorff, L., & Probst, C. (2009). The delineation of an interdisciplinary specialty in terms of a journal set: The case of communication studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1709–1718.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu, J., & Adie, E. (2013). New perspectives on article-level metrics: Developing ways to assess research uptake and impact online. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 26(2), 153–158.  https://doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Melero, R. (2015). Altmetrics—A complement to conventional metrics. Biochemia Medica, 25(2), 152–160.  https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2015.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moed, H. F. (2015). Altmetrics as traces of the computerization of the research process. https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.05131.
  26. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murray, D., & Chabot, C. (2013). Tableau your data!: Fast and easy visual analysis with Tableau Software. Indianapolis: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Ortega, J. L. (2017). The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations). Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(6), 674–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Knowledge linkage structures in communication studies using citation analysis among communication journals. Scientometrics, 81(1), 157–175.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-2119-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Park, H., & Park, H. W. (2018). Research evaluation of Asian countries using altmetrics: Comparing South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and China. Scientometrics, 117, 771–788.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2884-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto.
  32. Repiso, R. (2015). Cómo identificar una revista de calidad. Cardiocore, 2, 46–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Repiso, R., & Chaparro-Domínguez, M.-Á. (2018). Universidades españolas en la prensa extranjera. Análisis de su cobertura periodística. El Profesional de la Información, 27(1), 86–94.  https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2018.ene.08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robinson García, N., Torres-Salinas, D., Zahedi, Z., & Costas, R. (2014). Nuevos datos, nuevas posibilidades: revelando el interior de Altmetric.com. El profesional de la información, 23(4), 359–366.  https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2014.jul.03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Segado-Boj, F. (2013). ¿ Revistas 2.0? Revistas científicas españolas del área de Comunicación en las redes sociales. Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico, 19(abril), 1007–1016.  https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_esmp.2013.v19.42185.Google Scholar
  36. Simmie, D., Vigliotti, M. G., & Hankin, C. (2014). Ranking twitter influence by combining network centrality and influence observables in an evolutionary model. Journal of Complex Networks, 2(4), 495–517.  https://doi.org/10.1093/comnet/cnu024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thelwall, M. (2017). Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields? Scientometrics, 113(3), 1743–1753.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2557-x.Google Scholar
  38. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do Altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE, 8(5), 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Torres-Salinas, D., Cabezas-Clavijo, Á., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2013). Altmetrics: nuevos indicadorespara la comunicación científica en la Web 2.0. Comunicar, 21(41), 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Velho, L. (1986). The “meaning” of citation in the context of a scientifically peripheral country. Scientometrics, 9(1–2), 71–89.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 102–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams, S. A., Terras, M., & Warwick, C. (2013). What people study when they study Twitter. Journal of Documentation, 69(3), 528–554.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-03-2012-0027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rushforth, A. (2015). The metric tide: Literature review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management).  https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.1.5066.3520.
  44. Yu, H., Xu, S., Xiao, T., Hemminger, B. M., & Yang, S. (2017). Global science discussed in local altmetrics: Weibo and its comparison with Twitter. Journal of Informetrics, 11(2), 466–482.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.02.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014a). How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1491–1513.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1264-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014b). Assessing the impact of publications saved by Mendeley users: Is there any different pattern among users? In Proceedings of the IATUL conferences (pp. 1–13).  https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1528.1280.
  47. Zhang, Y., & Leung, L. (2015). A review of social networking service (SNS) research in communication journals from 2006 to 2011. New Media & Society, 17(7), 1007–1024.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813520477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR)LogroñoSpain
  2. 2.Universidad de MálagaMálagaSpain
  3. 3.Universidad de GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations