Tracing Digital Footprints to Academic Articles: An Investigation of PeerJ Publication Referral Data

In this study, we propose a novel way to explore the patterns of people's visits to academic articles. About 3.4 million links to referral source of visitors of 1432 papers published in the journal of PeerJ are collected and analyzed. We find that at least 57% visits are from external referral sources, among which General Search Engine, Social Network, and News & Blog are the top three categories of referrals. Academic Resource, including academic search engines and academic publishers' sites, is the fourth largest category of referral sources. In addition, our results show that Google contributes significantly the most in directing people to scholarly articles. This encompasses the usage of Google the search engine, Google Scholar the academic search engine, and diverse specific country domains of them. Focusing on similar disciplines to PeerJ's publication scope, NCBI is the academic search engine on which people are the most frequently directed to PeerJ. Correlation analysis and regression analysis indicates that papers with more mentions are expected to have more visitors, and Facebook, Twitter and Reddit are the most commonly used social networking tools that refer people to PeerJ.

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

[2]  Xianwen Wang,et al.  Usage history of scientific literature: Nature metrics and metrics of Nature publications , 2013, Scientometrics.

[3]  Man Kit Cheung,et al.  Altmetrics: Too soon for use in assessment , 2013, Nature.

[4]  Xianwen Wang,et al.  Tracing scientist’s research trends realtimely , 2012, Scientometrics.

[5]  Heather A. Piwowar,et al.  Altmetrics: Value all research products , 2013, Nature.

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

[7]  F. Galligan,et al.  Altmetrics: Rethinking the Way We Measure , 2013 .

[8]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  Interpreting "altmetrics": viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories , 2015, ArXiv.

[9]  Roberta Kwok,et al.  Research impact: Altmetrics make their mark , 2013, Nature.

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

[11]  Chuanli Wang,et al.  Exploring scientists' working timetable: Do scientists often work overtime? , 2012, J. Informetrics.

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

[13]  Martin Fenner,et al.  Altmetrics in Evolution: Defining and Redefining the Ontology of Article-Level Metrics , 2013 .

[14]  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..

[15]  Stacy Konkiel,et al.  New opportunities for repositories in the age of altmetrics , 2013 .

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

[17]  Stefka Toleva-Stoimenova,et al.  Knowledge Diffusion via Social Networks: The 21st Century Challenge , 2013, Int. J. Digit. Lit. Digit. Competence.

[18]  M. Herie,et al.  Knowledge diffusion in social work: a new approach to bridging the gap. , 2002, Social work.