Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-views on Nature Index of Chinese academic institutions

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altmetric (2016a). How it works. https://www.altmetric.com/about-our-data/how-it-works/.

  • Altmetric (2016b). Scientific method: Statistical errors. https://www.altmetric.com/details/2115792.

  • Bar-Ilan, J. (2012a). Jasist 2001–2010. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 38(6), 24–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Ilan, J. (2012b). Jasist@ mendeley. In ACM Web Science Conference 2012 Workshop.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, N., & Grayson, M. (2014). Index 2014 global. Nature, 515(7526), 49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, N., & Grayson, M. (2014b). Introducing the index. Nature, 515(7526), 52–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, N., & Grayson, M. (2015). A response to ’discussion about the new nature index’. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1831–1833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganegan, F. (2012). Filtering the research record and farming big data. http://www.swets.com/blog/filtering-the-research-record-and-farming-big-data.

  • Grayson, M., & Pincock, S. (2015). Nature index 2015 collaborations. Nature, 527(7577), S49–S49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haunschild, R., & Bornmann, L. (2015a). Discussion about the new nature index. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1829–1830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haunschild, R., & Bornmann, L. (2015b). Publishing: Criteria for nature index questioned. Nature, 517(7532), 21–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGhee, K., & Phillips, N. (2015). Nature index 2015 china. Nature, 528(7582), S165–S165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nature (2016a). The nature index. http://www.natureindex.com/.

  • Nature (2016b). Nature publishing index. http://www.natureasia.com/en/publishing-index.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto.

  • Priem, J., Piwowar, H.A., & Hemminger, B.M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv preprint arXiv:12034745.

  • Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2012). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PloS ONE, 7(5), e35,869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva, V. (2016). Scientometrics: Nature index and brazilian science. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 88(3), 1597–1599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131–1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweedler, J. V. (2015). Help your institution’s reputation and publish in analytical chemistry. Analytical Chemistry, 87(3), 1421–1421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Salinas, D., Cabezas-Clavijo, Á., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2013). Altmetrics: New indicators for scientific communication in web 2.0. arXiv preprint arXiv:13066595.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Software, Key Laboratory for Ubiquitous Network and Service Software of Liaoning Province, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116620, Liaoning, China

    Yu Liu, Dan Lin, Xiujuan Xu & Shimin Shan

  2. Department of Computing, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia

    Quan Z. Sheng

Authors
  1. Yu Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dan Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiujuan Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shimin Shan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Quan Z. Sheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiujuan Xu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, Y., Lin, D., Xu, X. et al. Multi-views on Nature Index of Chinese academic institutions. Scientometrics 114, 823–837 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2581-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2581-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation