Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC's members

This study explores the connections between social and usage metrics (altmetrics) and bibliometric indicators at the author level. It studies to what extent these indicators, gained from academic sites, can provide a proxy for research impact. Close to 10,000 author profiles belonging to the Spanish National Research Council were extracted from the principal scholarly social sites: ResearchGate, Academia.edu and Mendeley and academic search engines: Microsoft Academic Search and Google Scholar Citations. Results describe little overlapping between sites because most of the researchers only manage one profile (72%). Correlations point out that there is scant relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators at author level. This is due to the almetric ones are site-dependent, while the bibliometric ones are more stable across web sites. It is concluded that altmetrics could reflect an alternative dimension of the research performance, close, perhaps, to science popularization and networking abilities, but far from citation impact.

[1]  José Luis Ortega,et al.  Microsoft academic search and Google scholar citations: Comparative analysis of author profiles , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[2]  M. Thelwall,et al.  F 1000 , Mendeley and Traditional Bibliometric Indicators , 2012 .

[3]  Omar Almousa,et al.  Users' classification and usage-pattern identification in academic social networks , 2011, 2011 IEEE Jordan Conference on Applied Electrical Engineering and Computing Technologies (AEECT).

[4]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  Metrics à la mode , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[5]  Masoud Banbersta.  The success factors of the Social Network Sites - 'Twitter' , 2010 .

[6]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  Google Scholar Author Citation Tracker: is it too little, too late? , 2012 .

[7]  Nicolás Robinson-García,et al.  Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: simple, easy and tempting , 2012, ArXiv.

[8]  Pavlin Mavrodiev,et al.  Social resilience in online communities: the autopsy of friendster , 2013, COSN '13.

[9]  A. Watson.  Comparing citations and downloads for individual articles , 2009 .

[10]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  What is the impact of the publications read by the different Mendeley users? Could they help to identify alternative types of impact? PLoS ALM Workshop, San Francisco , 2013 .

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

[12]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Groups in Mendeley: Owners' descriptions and group outcomes , 2012, ASIST.

[13]  Johan Bollen,et al.  A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures , 2009, PloS one.

[14]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web? , 2014, Scientometrics.

[15]  Ian Rowlands,et al.  Social media use in the research workflow , 2011, Inf. Serv. Use.

[16]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community , 2014, Scientometrics.

[17]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services , 2013, PloS one.

[18]  Bradley M. Hemminger,et al.  Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web , 2010, First Monday.

[19]  R. König,et al.  Academia Goes Facebook? The Potential of Social Network Sites in the Scholarly Realm , 2014 .

[20]  Antonella De Angeli,et al.  Exploring the Virtual Space of Academia , 2012, COOP.

[21]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship? , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[22]  Blaise Cronin Editor-in-Chief,et al.  Metrics à la mode , 2013 .

[23]  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..

[24]  José Luis Ortega,et al.  Science is all in the eye of the beholder: Keyword maps in Google scholar citations , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[25]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Academia.edu: Social network or Academic Network? , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[26]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  Beyond citations: Scholars' visibility on the social Web , 2012, ArXiv.

[27]  Gunther Eysenbach,et al.  Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact , 2011, Journal of medical Internet research.

[28]  Jason Priem,et al.  How and why scholars cite on Twitter , 2010, ASIST.

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

[30]  Daqing He,et al.  Mendeley group as a new source of interdisciplinarity study: how do disciplines interact on mendeley? , 2013, JCDL '13.

[31]  M. Limayem,et al.  Why a few social networking sites succeed while many fail , 2015 .

[32]  A. Watson.  Comparing citations and downloads for individual articles at the Journal of Vision , 2009 .

[33]  Thomas V Perneger,et al.  Competing interests: None declared. Ethical approval: Ethics committee of Côte d’Ivoire’s Ministry of Public Health and the Institutional Review Board of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , 2004 .

[34]  Daqing He,et al.  User participation in an academic social networking service: A survey of open group users on Mendeley , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[35]  Stevan Harnad,et al.  Earlier Web Usage Statistics as Predictors of Later Citation Impact , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[36]  Diego Ponte,et al.  Scholarly Communication 2.0: Exploring Researchers' Opinions on Web 2.0 for Scientific Knowledge Creation, Evaluation and Dissemination , 2011 .

[37]  Senjuti Basu Roy,et al.  ALIAS: Author Disambiguation in Microsoft Academic Search Engine Dataset , 2014, EDBT.

[38]  Brian Kelly,et al.  Can LinkedIn and Academia.edu enhance access to open repositories , 2012 .

[39]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? An analysis of mendeley readers , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[40]  M. Ryan Haley,et al.  Ranking top economics and finance journals using Microsoft academic search versus Google scholar: How does the new publish or perish option compare? , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[41]  Madian Khabsa,et al.  Digital commons , 2020, Internet Policy Rev..

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

[43]  José Luis Ortega.  Academic search engines : a quantitative outlook , 2014 .

[44]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  The pros and cons of Microsoft Academic Search from a bibliometric perspective , 2011 .