Scholarly social media profiles and libraries: A review

LIBER Quarterly

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 174-204

  Ward, Judit ^a   Bejarano, William ^a   Dudás, Anikó ^b  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PÁZMÁNY PÉTER CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Altmetric; Discoverability; Researcher profile; Scholarly selfie; Scholarly social media

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929456987     PISSN: 14355205     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.18352/lq.9958     Document Type: Review

References (80)

1. Abt, H.A. (2000). Do important papers produce high citation counts? Scientometrics, 48(1), 65–70. doi: 10.1023/A:1005680318379.
2. ACUMEN Portfolio (2014). Guidelines for Good Evaluation Practice with the ACUMEN Portfolio. ACUMEN Consortium. Retrieved April 17, 2015, from http://research-acumen.eu/wp-content/uploads/ACUMEN-Guidelines-Portfolio-TOCdocument-v13.pdf.
3. Barbour, K., & Marshall, D. (2012). The academic online: Constructing persona through the world wide web. First Monday, 17, n.p. Retrieved March 18, 2015 from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3969.
4. Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the social web. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5611.
5. Bik, H.M., & Goldstein, M.C. (2013). An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS Biology, 11(4), e1001535.Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535.
6. 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. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.005.
7. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H.D. (2008). Citation counts for research evaluation: Standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(1), 93–102. Retrieved March 18,2015, from http://www.int-res.com/articles/esep2008/8/e008p093.pdf.
8. Boyack, K.W., Klavans, R., & Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64(3), 351–374. doi: 10.1007/s11192-005-0255-6.
9. Crawford, M. (2011). Biologists using social-networking sites to boost collaboration. Bioscience, 61(9), 736–736. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/61/9/736.short.
10. Cronin, B. (2001). Bibliometrics and beyond: Some thoughts on web-based citation analysis. Journal of Information Science, 27(1), 1–7. doi:10.1177/016555150102700101.
11. Cronje, J.C. (2013). Why I don’t use the library. Proceedings of the Conference of the International Association of Scientific and Technological University Libraries. Purdue University. Retrieved March 18, 2015 from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/2013/papers/22/.
12. De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to cybermetrics. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
13. De Groote, S.L. (2008). Citation patterns of online and print journals in the digital age. Journal of the Medical Library Association: Journal of The Medical Library Association, 96(4), 362–369. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.96.4.012. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2568853/pdf/mlab-96-04-362.pdf.
14. Dudás, A., Ward, J.H., & Bejarano, W. (2014). Tudományos “szelfi”: Szerzői profilok az interneten [Scholary selfies: Your author’s profile on the internet. In Hungarian.]. In 46th Annual Conference of the Hungarian Library Association, Sopron, Hungary. July 18, 2014.
15. Sopron, Hungary, Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152. doi: 10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7.
16. Engels, T.C., Ossenblok, T.L., & Spruyt, E.H. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities, 2000–2009. Scientometrics, 93(2), 373–390. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0680-2.
17. Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e123. doi:10.2196/jmir.2012.
18. Fenner, M. (2014). Altmetrics and other novel measures for scientific impact. In S. Bartling, & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening science (pp. 179–189). Heidelberg, New York: Springer Open. Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-00026-8.
19. Foley, M.J., & Kochalko, D.L. (2012). Open researcher and contributor identification (ORCID). In Proceedings of the Charleston Library Conference. Purdue University. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2010/OutofBox/1/.
20. Galloway, L.M., Pease, J.L., & Rauh, A.E. (2013). Introduction to altmetrics for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) librarians. Science & Technology Libraries, 32(4), 335–345. doi: 10.1080/0194262X.2013.829762.
21. Gewin, V. (2010). Collaboration: Social networking seeks critical mass. Nature, 468(7326), 993–994. doi: 10.1038/nj7326-993a. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7326-993a.
22. Giglia, E. (2011). Academic social networks: It’s time to change the way we do research. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 47(2), 345–349. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://www.minervamedica.it/en/freedownload. php?cod=R33Y2011N02A0345.
23. Goodier, S., & Czerniewicz, L. (2012). Academics’ online presence guidelines: A four step guide to taking control of your visibility. Retrieved March 18, 2015 from http://openuct.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/Online%20Visibility%20Guidelines.pdf.
24. Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., & Schlögl, C. (2014). Usage versus citation behaviours in four subject areas. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1077–1095. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1271-1.
25. Gruzd, A. (2012). Non-academic and academic social networking sites for online scholarly communities. In D. Rasmussen Neal (Ed.), Social media for academics: A practical guide (pp. 21–37). Woodhead Publishing.
26. Haak, L.L., Fenner, M., Paglione, L., Pentz, E., & Ratner, H. (2012). ORCID: A system to uniquely identify researchers. Learned Publishing, 25(4), 259–264. doi: 10.1087/20120404. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2012/00000025/00000004/art00004?token=004e1238e1275c277b42573a6766765534447b497675592f653b672c57582a72752d 709b856003.
27. Hajnal Ward, J., Bejarano, W., & Dudás, A. (2014). Tudományos szelfi: Szerzői profilok az interneten (Scholarly selfies: Author profiles on the inernet. In Hungarian). Library Review /Konyvtari Figyelő, 24(3), 290–304.
28. Hajnal Ward, J., Stewart, M., Cox, J., Candon, P., & Cook, S. (2011). Gyakorlati bibliometria: A tudományos tevékenység értékelése könyvtári eszközökkel [Practical bibliometrics: Evaluating scholarly activities with library resources. In Hungarian]. Könyvtári Figyelő, 57(1), 107–132.
29. Hall, N. (2014). The Kardashian index: A measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Genome Biology, 15(7), 424. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://www.genomebiology.com/content/pdf/s13059-014-0424-0.pdf.
30. Hammarfelt, B. (2014). Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1419–1430. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1261-3.
31. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2014). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1145–1163. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1221-3.
32. Haustein, S., & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 446–457. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.04.002.
33. Hicks, D. (2005). The four literatures of social science. In H.F. Moed, W. Glanzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 473–496). Springer Netherlands.
34. Hirsch, J.E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://www.pnas.org/content/102/46/16569.full.
35. Hood, W.W., & Wilson, C.S. (2001). The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics, 52(2), 291–314. doi: 10.1023/A:1017919924342.
36. Hoover, S. (2014). Reputation management: Evaluating journals for publication and impact. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 41. Retrieved March 18, 2015 from https://journals.tdl.org/absel/index.php/absel/article/view/2113.
37. Izenstark, A. (2014). Look good when you’re googled: Creating and optimizing your digital identity. Library Hi Tech News, 31(9), 14–16. doi: 10.1108/LHTN-07-2014-0061.
38. Jacso, P. (2008). Testing the calculation of a realistic h-index in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science for FW Lancaster. Library Trends, 56(4), 784–815. doi: 10.1353/lib.0.0011.
39. Jacsó, P. (2011). The pros and cons of microsoft Academic Search from a bibliometric perspective. Online Information Review, 35(6), 983–997. doi: 10.1108/14684521111210788.
40. Jacsó, P. (2012). Google Scholar author citation tracker: Is it too little, too late? Online Information Review, 36(1), 126–141. doi: 10.1108/14684521211209581.
41. Leydesdorff, L. (1998). Theories of citation? Scientometrics, 43(1), 5–25. doi: 10.1007/BF02458391.
42. Li, X., & Thelwall, M. (2012). F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. In E. Archambault, Y. Gringas, & V. Larivière (Eds), Proceedings of the 17th international conference on science and technology indicators (pp. 541–551). Montréal: Science-Metrix and OST. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://sticonference.org/Proceedings/vol2/Li_F1000_541.pdf.
43. Mangan, K. (2012). Social networks for academics: Proliferate, despite some scholars’ doubts. Chronicle of Higher Education, 58(35), 1–7. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://chronicle.com/article/Social-Networks-for-Academics/131726/.
44. Martin, B., Tang, P., Morgan, M., Glänzel, W., Hornbostel, S., Lauer, G., Zic-Fuchs, M. (2010). Towards a bibliometric database for the social sciences and humanities – A European scoping project. Retrieved April 17, 2015 from https://globalhighered.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/esf_report_final_100309.pdf.
45. Mas-Bleda, A., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., & Aguillo, I.F. (2014). Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web? Scientometrics, 101(1), 337–356. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1345-0.
46. Meho, L.I. (2007). The rise and rise of citation analysis. Physics World 20(1), 32–36. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0701012.
47. Meho, L.I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125. doi: 10.1002/asi.20677.
48. Mendez, J.P., Curry, J., Mwavita, M., Kennedy, K., Weinland, K., & Bainbridge, K. (2009). To friend or not to friend: Academic interaction on facebook. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 6(9), 33–47.
49. Moed, H.F. (2006). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Springer Science & Business Media.
50. 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. doi: 10.1002/asi.23071.
51. Nentwich, M., & König, R. (2014). Academia goes Facebook? The potential of social network sites in the scholarly realm. In S. Bartling, & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening science (pp. 107–124). Springer International Publishing. NIH biosketch sample document. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/SF424R-R_biosketchsample_VerC.docx.
52. Noruzi, A. (2005). Google Scholar: The new generation of citation indexes. Libri, 55(4), 170–180.
53. Open data platform figshare relaunches with added functionality and unlimited storage. (2012). Retrieved March 18, 2015 from http://www.digital-science.com/press-releases/open-data-platform-figshare-relaunches-with-added-functionalityand-unlimited-storage/.
54. Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllon, J.M., Martin-Martin, A., & Lopez-Cozar, E.D. (2014). Empirical evidences in citation-based search engines: Is Microsoft Academic Search dead? Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.7045.
55. Ortega, J.L. (2015). Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC’s members. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 39–49. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.004.
56. Ortega, J.L., & Aguillo, I.F. (2014). Microsoft academic search and google scholar citations: Comparative analysis of author profiles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(6), 1149–1156. doi: 10.1002/asi.23036.
57. The Oxford Dictionaries word of the year is…(2013). Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/11/word-of-the-year-2013-winner/.
58. Peters, M.A. (2014). Open science, philosophy and peer review. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(3), 215–219. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2013.781296.
59. Piwowar, H. (2013). Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature, 493(7431), 159–159. doi: 10.1038/493159a.
60. Priem, J., Groth, P., & Taraborelli, D. (2012a). The altmetrics collection. PloS One, 7(11), e48753. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048753.
61. Priem, J., Piwowar, H.A., & Hemminger, B.M. (2012b). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://arxiv.org/html/1203.4745.
62. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto (v.1.0). Retrieved March 18, 2015 from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto.
63. Rinaldi, A. (2014). Spinning the web of open science: Social networks for scientists and data sharing, together with open access, promise to change the way research is conducted and communicated. EMBO Reports, 15(4), 342–346. doi:10.1002/embr.201438659. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://embor.embopress.org/content/15/4/342.
64. Rodgers, E., & Barbrow, S. (2013). A look at altmetrics and its growing significance to research libraries. The University of Michigan University Library. Retrieved March 18, 2015 http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/99709.
65. Rutgers open access policy (2012). Retrieved March 18, 2015 from http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/scholarly_comm/Rutgers_OA_Policy_2012-11.pdf.
66. Schreiber, M. (2008). An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-index, the A-index, and the R-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(9), 1513–1522. doi: 10.1002/asi.v59:9. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1820.
67. Sivertsen, G., & Larsen, B. (2012). Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: An empirical analysis of the potential. Scientometrics, 91(2), 567–575. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0615-3.
68. Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131–1143. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2.
69. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2014). Academia. edu: Social network or academic network? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 721–731. doi: 10.1002/asi.23038.
70. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), 876–889. doi: 10.1002/asi.23236.
71. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C.R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PloS One, 8(5), e64841. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0064841.
72. Torres-Salinas, D., Cabezas-Clavijo, Á., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2013). Altmetrics: New indicators for scientific communication in web 2.0. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6595.
73. Van Norden, R. (2014). Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512(7513), 126–129.
74. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.15711!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/512126a.pdf.
75. Vinkler, P. (2010). The evaluation of research by scientometric indicators. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
76. Weller, K. (2015). Social media and altmetrics: An overview of current alternative approaches to measuring scholarly impact. In I.M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, & M. Osterloh (Eds.), Incentives and performance (pp. 261–276). Springer International Publishing.
77. Weller, K., & Strohmaier, M. (2014). Social media in academia: How the social web is changing academic practice and becoming a new source for research data. IT-Information Technology, 56(5), 203–206. doi: 10.1515/itit-2014-9002.
78. West, R., & McIlwaine, A. (2002). What do citation counts count for in the field of addiction? An empirical evaluation of citation counts and their link with peer ratings of quality. Addiction, 97(5), 501–504. What does altmetric do? Retrieved March 18, 2015, from https://www.altmetric.com/whatwedo.php.
79. Woelfle, M., Olliaro, P., & Todd, M.H. (2011). Open science is a research accelerator. Nature Chemistry, 3(10), 745–748.
80. Zaugg, H., West, R.E., Tateishi, I., & Randall, D.L. (2011). Mendeley: Creating communities of scholarly inquiry through research collaboration. TechTrends, 55(1), 32–36.