Demography of Altmetrics under the Light of Dimensions: Locations, Institutions, Journals, Disciplines and Funding Bodies in the Global Research Framework

The interconnection between the Dimensions database and Altmetric.com provides an opportunity to carry out a worldwide analysis on altmetrics coverage of scientific literature, analyzing the percentage of documents with altmetric mentions not only in general (indexed documents), but also filtered according to different units of analysis. In order to do so, the Dimensions Pro version database was directly used to retrieve 97,531,400 documents, which were subsequently filtered to obtain the top journals, countries, cities, institutions, research fields and funding bodies according to the total number of publications indexed in the database. For each entity and year of publication (from 2000 to 2017), the corresponding percentage of publications cited and the Altmetric Attention Score (% mentioned) were calculated. The main results indicate that the total number of publications with an Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) of one or over one is low (9.4% out of the total coverage), which has been highly concentrated in recent years, and higher for open access documents (18.9%), showing an open access altmetric advantage. Otherwise, English-speaking universities stand out, which determines an increase in the presence of specific cities from Anglo-Saxon countries, diminishing the presence in Japan, China, Russia or India, despite their elevated productivity. Multidisciplinary and medicine-related journals are also highlighted, which in turn influences the research disciplines with a higher AAS (% mentioned): Genetics, Immunology, Microbiology or Medical Microbiology. However, since the conducted analysis has brought out some inconsistencies in the quality of the data, results must be taken with caution.

[1]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[2]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ? , 2014, it Inf. Technol..

[3]  Dimensons Team,et al.  A Guide to the Dimensions Data Approach , 2018 .

[4]  Richard van Noorden.  Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. , 2014, Nature.

[5]  Juan Pablo Alperin.  Geographic variation in social media metrics: an analysis of Latin American journal articles , 2015, Aslib J. Inf. Manag..

[6]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[7]  Katrin Weller,et al.  Citation Analysis in Twitter: Approaches for Defining and Measuring Information Flows within Tweets during Scientific Conferences , 2011, #MSM.

[8]  Tindaro Cicero,et al.  Are the authors of highly cited articles also the most productive ones? , 2018, J. Informetrics.

[9]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[10]  Juan Gorraiz,et al.  Availability of digital object identifiers (DOIs) in Web of Science and Scopus , 2016, J. Informetrics.

[11]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication , 2014, Scientometrics.

[12]  Emilio Delgado López-Cózar,et al.  ¡Viva la competencia! Nuevas dimensiones para la búsqueda y evaluación de la información científica , 2018 .

[13]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement , 2011, Scientometrics.

[14]  Bradley M. Hemminger,et al.  Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact , 2012, ArXiv.

[15]  Christian Herzog,et al.  Dimensions: Building Context for Search and Evaluation , 2018, Front. Res. Metr. Anal..

[16]  Lutz Bornmann.  Field classification of publications in Dimensions: a first case study testing its reliability and validity , 2018, Scientometrics.

[17]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics , 2014, J. Informetrics.

[18]  Richard Van Noorden.  Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network , 2014, Nature.

[19]  Enrique Orduña-Malea,et al.  Dimensions: re-discovering the ecosystem of scientific information , 2018, ArXiv.

[20]  Nicolás Robinson-García,et al.  New data, new possibilities: Exploring the insides of Altmetric.com , 2014, ArXiv.

[21]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Dimensions: A Competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science? , 2018, J. Informetrics.

[22]  Wolf-Tilo Balke,et al.  What does Twitter Measure?: Influence of Diverse User Groups in Altmetrics , 2015, JCDL.

[23]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications , 2014, Scientometrics.

[24]  Benoit Macaluso.  Measuring twitter activity of arxiv e-prints and published papers , 2014 .

[25]  Stefanie Haustein,et al.  Grand challenges in altmetrics: heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies , 2016, Scientometrics.

[26]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  General discussion of data quality challenges in social media metrics: Extensive comparison of four major altmetric data aggregators , 2018, PloS one.

[27]  Christian Herzog,et al.  Response to the letter ‘Field classification of publications in Dimensions: a first case study testing its reliability and validity’ , 2018, Scientometrics.

[28]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[29]  José Luis Ortega,et al.  Disciplinary differences of the impact of altmetric , 2018, FEMS microbiology letters.

[30]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  Users, narcissism and control – tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century , 2012 .

[31]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Cascading Citation Expansion , 2018, ArXiv.