, Volume 114, Issue 3, pp 823–837 | Cite as

Multi-views on Nature Index of Chinese academic institutions

  • Yu Liu
  • Dan Lin
  • Xiujuan Xu
  • Shimin Shan
  • Quan Z. Sheng


The Nature Index (NI) has become a rather powerful tool to identify emerging trends in various research fields. According to the NI 2015 released at the beginning of 2016, China, the world’s second largest producer of research papers, maintains a strong momentum on scientific output. Based on online source metrics such as Mendeley bookmarks, we evaluated multi-viewed impact of the top 50 academic institutions in the NI China. For the selection of multiple metrics, we investigated the presence and coverage of different kinds of online metrics, with a particular focus on their correlations with traditional citation-based metrics. In addition, Mendeley, Twitter, and Scopus are chosen as the complementary sources for multi-metrics. We sorted three ranks of the top 50 institutions in the NI China based on citation counts in Scopus, reader counts on Mendeley, and Twitter counts and we analyzed the differences among various ranking results. The diverse metrics revealed different aspects on institutions’ academic impact.


Altmetrics sources The Nature Index 2015 China Social media presence Ranking 



This work was supported in part by the Natural Science Foundation of China Grant 61672128, 61502069; the Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning Grant 2015020003; the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities DUT16ZD(G)02.


  1. Altmetric (2016b). Scientific method: Statistical errors.
  2. Bar-Ilan, J. (2012a). Jasist 2001–2010. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 38(6), 24–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar-Ilan, J. (2012b). Jasist@ mendeley. In ACM Web Science Conference 2012 Workshop.Google Scholar
  4. Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the social web. arXiv preprint arXiv:12055611.
  5. Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 895–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2016). An empirical look at the nature index. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(3), 653–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, N., & Grayson, M. (2014). Index 2014 global. Nature, 515(7526), 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, N., & Grayson, M. (2014b). Introducing the index. Nature, 515(7526), 52–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, N., & Grayson, M. (2015). A response to ’discussion about the new nature index’. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1831–1833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015). Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2003–2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ganegan, F. (2012). Filtering the research record and farming big data.
  12. Grayson, M., & Pincock, S. (2015). Nature index 2015 collaborations. Nature, 527(7577), S49–S49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haunschild, R., & Bornmann, L. (2015a). Discussion about the new nature index. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1829–1830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haunschild, R., & Bornmann, L. (2015b). Publishing: Criteria for nature index questioned. Nature, 517(7532), 21–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2014a). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1145–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., & Larivière, V. (2014b). 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
  17. Letierce, J., Passant, A., Breslin, J., & Decker, S. (2010). Understanding how twitter is used to spread scientific messages. In Proceedings of the WebSci10: Extending the frontiers of society on-line.Google Scholar
  18. Li, X., & Thelwall, M. (2012). F1000, mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on science and technology indicators, (vol. 2, pp. 451–551).Google Scholar
  19. Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McGhee, K., & Phillips, N. (2015). Nature index 2015 china. Nature, 528(7582), S165–S165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nature (2016a). The nature index.
  24. Nature (2016b). Nature publishing index.
  25. O’reilly, T. (2007). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications and Strategies, 1, 17–37.Google Scholar
  26. Piwowar, H., & Priem, J. (2013). The power of altmetrics on a CV. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(4), 10–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ponte, D., & Simon, J. (2011). Scholarly communication 2.0: Exploring researchers’ opinions on web 2.0 for scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and dissemination. Serials Review, 37(3), 149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto.Google Scholar
  29. Priem, J., Piwowar, H.A., & Hemminger, B.M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv preprint arXiv:12034745.
  30. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2012). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PloS ONE, 7(5), e35,869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 1018–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Silva, V. (2016). Scientometrics: Nature index and brazilian science. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 88(3), 1597–1599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sweedler, J. V. (2015). Help your institution’s reputation and publish in analytical chemistry. Analytical Chemistry, 87(3), 1421–1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PloS ONE, 8(5), e64,841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (2015). Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(8), 1962–1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Torres-Salinas, D., Cabezas-Clavijo, Á., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2013). Altmetrics: New indicators for scientific communication in web 2.0. arXiv preprint arXiv:13066595.
  38. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014). How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1491–1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yu Liu
    • 1
  • Dan Lin
    • 1
  • Xiujuan Xu
    • 1
  • Shimin Shan
    • 1
  • Quan Z. Sheng
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Software, Key Laboratory for Ubiquitous Network and Service Software of Liaoning ProvinceDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina
  2. 2.Department of ComputingMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations