Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web?

Scientometrics

Volumn 101, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 337-356

  Mas Bleda, Amalia ^a   Thelwall, Mike ^b   Kousha, Kayvan ^b   Aguillo, Isidro F ^a  

^a Institute of Public Goods and Policies   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Assessment; Europe; Highly cited scientists; Impact; Indicators; Social web; Web presence

Indexed keywords

EID: 84939895619     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1345-0     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Adie, E., & Roe, W. (2013). Altmetric: Enriching scholarly content with article-level discussion and metrics. Learned Publishing,26(1), 11–17.
2. Aguillo, I. F. (2012). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics,91(2), 343–351.
3. Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College & Research Libraries,65(5), 372–382.
4. Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Library,3(1), 7.
5. Bar-Ilan, J. (2004). A microscopic link analysis of academic institutions within a country—The case of Israel. Scientometrics,59(3), 391–403.
6. Bar-Ilan, J. (2010). Web of Science with the Conference Proceedings Citation Indexes: The case of computer science. Scientometrics,83(3), 809–824.
7. Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, S., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the social Web. In Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 98–109), Montréal: Science-Metrix and OST.
8. Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics,1(1), 26–34.
9. Barjak, F. (2006). The role of the Internet in informal scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,57(10), 1350–1367.
10. Barjak, F., Li, X., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Which factors explain the web impact of scientists’ personal homepages? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(2), 200–211.
11. Barjak, F., & Thelwall, M. (2008). A statistical analysis of the web presences of European life sciences research teams. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,59(4), 628–643.
12. Björk, B.-C., Welling P., Laakso, M., Majlender P., Hedlund T., & Gudnasson, G. (2010). Open access to the scientific journal literature: Situation 2009. PLoS One, 5(6). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011273.
13. Bollen, J., Van De Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., & Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures, PLoS One, 4(6). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006022.
14. Brody, T., Harnad, S., & Carr, L. (2006). Earlier web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,57(8), 1060–1072.
15. Brooks, T. A. (1986). Evidence of complex citer motivations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,37(1), 34–36.
16. Brown, C. (2007). The role of Web-based information in the scholarly communication of chemists: Citation and content analyses of American Chemical Society Journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(13), 2055–2065.
17. Chen, C., Sun, K., Wu, G., Tang, Q., Qin, J., Chiu, K., et al. (2009). The impact of internet resources on scholarly communication: A citation analysis. Scientometrics,81(2), 459–474.
18. Chung, J. C., & Park, H. W. (2012). Web visibility of scholars in media and communication journals. Scientometrics,93(1), 207–215. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0707-8.
19. Couto, F.M., Pesquita, C., Grego, T., & Veríssimo, P. Handling self-citations using Google Scholar. Cybermetrics. 2009, 13(1). Online document. http://cybermetrics.cindoc.csic.es/articles/v13i1p2.html. Accessed 21 November 2012.
20. Cronin, B. (1982). Norms and functions in citation: The view of journals editors and referees in psychology. Social Science Information Studies,2, 65–78.
21. Cronin, B. (1984). The citation process. The role and significance of citations in scientific communication. London: Taylor Graham.
22. Dumont, K., & Frindte, W. (2005). Content analysis of the homepages of academic psychologists. Computers in Human Behavior,21(1), 73–83.
23. Elsevier (2012). Scopus.Content Coverage Guide. Online document. http://files.sciverse.com/documents/pdf/ContentCoverageGuide-jan-2013.pdf Accessed 15 July 2013.
24. 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.
25. Figueiredo, F., Pinto, H., Belém, F., Almeida, J., Gonçalves, M., Fernandes, D., et al. (2013). Assessing the quality of textual features in social media. Information Processing and Management,49(1), 222–247.
26. Goodrum, A. A., McCain, K. W., Lawrence, S., & Giles, C. L. (2001). Scholarly publishing in the Internet age: A citation analysis of computer science literature. Information Processing and Management,37, 661–675.
27. Gu, F., & Widén-Wulff, G. (2011). Scholarly communication and possible changes in the context of social media: A Finnish case study. The Electronic Library,29(6), 762–776.
28. th–19th July 2013.
29. Haustein, S., & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics,5, 446–457. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.04.002.
30. Jacso, P. (2005). As we may search—Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science,89(9), 1537–1547.
31. Jamali, H. R., & Nicholas, D. (2010). Interdisciplinarity and the information-seeking behavior of scientists. Information Processing and Management,46(2), 233–243.
32. Kalay, Y. E. (2008). Impacts of new media on scholarly publishing. Policy Futures in Education,6(1), 122–131. doi:10.2304/pfie.2008.6.1.122.
33. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2006). Motivations for URL citations to open access library and information science articles. Scientometrics,68(3), 501–517.
34. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar citations and Google/Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(7), 1055–1065.
35. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Assessing the impact of research on teaching: An automatic analysis of online syllabuses in science and social sciences. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology,59(13), 2060–2069.
36. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Google book search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,60(8), 1537–1549.
37. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Web impact metrics for research assessment. In B. Cronin & C. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Rezaie, S. (2010). Using the web for research evaluation: The integrated online impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics,4(1), 124–135.
39. Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics,91(2), 461–471.
40. Li, X., Thelwall, M., Wilkinson, D., & Musgrove, P. (2005). National and international university departmental web site interlinking. Scientometrics,64(2), 151–185.
41. Liu, Z. (2003). Trends in transforming scholarly communication and their implications. Information Processing and Management,39(6), 889–898.
42. Mas-Bleda, A., & Aguillo, I. (2013). Can a personal website be useful as an information source to assess individual scientists? The case of European highly cited researchers. Scientometrics,96(1), 51–67.
43. Mas-Bleda, A. Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., & Aguillo, I. (2013). European highly cited scientists’ presence in the social Web (pp. 1966–1969). In Proceedingof14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference (pp. 1966–1967). Vienna, Austria.
44. Mas-Bleda, A., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., & Aguillo, I. (2014). Successful researchers publicizing research online: an outlink analysis of European highly cited scientists’ personal websites. Journal of Documentation,70(1), 148–172.
45. Menendez, M., Angeli, A. de, & Menestrina, Z. (2012). Exploring the virtual space of academia. In 10th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (pp. 49–63). http://coop-2012.grenoble-inp.fr/pdf_papers/menendez_25.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2013.
46. Moed, H. F. (2005). Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology,56(10), 1088–1097.
47. Moed H. F., & Visser M. S. (2008). Appraisal of citation data sources. A report to HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England) by the Centre for Science and Technology Studies. Leiden: Leiden University.
48. Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Assessing the Mendeley readership of social sciences and humanities research. In Proceeding of14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference (pp. 200–214). Vienna, Austria.
49. Neylon, C., & Wu. S. (2009). Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biol, 7(11). doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000242.
50. Ortega, J. L., & Aguillo, I. (2009). Mapping world-class universities on the web. Information Processing and Management,45(2), 272–279.
51. Ortega, J. L., Aguillo, I., Cothey, V., & Scharnhorst, A. (2008). Maps of the academic web in the European Higher Education Area—An exploration of visual web indicators. Scientometrics,74(2), 295–308.
52. Pitzek, S. (2002). Impact of online-availability of science literature. Online document. http://www.vmars.tuwien.ac.at/courses/proseminar/doc/paperserver.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2013.
53. Polydoratou, P., & Moyle, M. (2009). Exploring aspects of scientific publishing in astrophysics and cosmology: The views of scientists. In M.-A. Sicilia & M. D. Lytras (Eds.), Metadata and semantics (pp. 179–190). United States: Springer.
54. 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. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2011.06.002.
55. Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. M. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15(7). Online document, http://firstmonday.org/article/viewArticle/2874/2570. Accessed 19 March 2013.
56. Priem, J., Parra, C., Piwowar, H., Groth, P., & Waagmeester, A. (2012). Uncovering impacts: a case study in using altmetrics tools. In Second International Conference on the Future of Scholarly Communication and Scientific Publishing. Heraklion, Greece. http://jasonpriem.org/self-archived/altmetrics-sepublica-cameraready.pdf. Accessed March 19, 2013.
57. Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A, &Hemminger, B.M. (2011). Altmetrics in the wild: An exploratory study of impact metrics based on social media. http://altmetrics.org/altmetrics12/priem/. Accessed March 19, 2013.
58. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Alt-Metrics: A Manifesto. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/. Accessed March 19, 2013.
59. Procter, R., Williams, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., Snee, H., Voss, A., et al. (2010). Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society A,368(1926), 4039–4056.
60. Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Russell, B., Canty, N., & Watkinson, A. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing,24(3), 183–195.
61. Russell, J., Ainsworth, S., & Díaz-Aguilar, J. (2012). Web visibility or wasted opportunity? Case studies from Mexican research institutes. ASLIB Proceedings,64(1), 67–82.
62. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2012). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PLoS One, 7(5). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035869.
63. Shingareva, I., & Lizárraga-Celaya, C. (2012). Relevant changes in scientific publishing in mathematics and physics. Publishing Research Quarterly,28(4), 294–306.
64. Smith, A. G., (2004). Web links as analogues of citations. Information Research, 9(4). Online document. http://informationr.net/ir/9-4/paper188.html. Accessed Oct 20, 2012.
65. Taraborelli, D. (2008). Soft peer review: social software and distributed scientific evaluation. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (pp. 99–110). France. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/8279/1/8279.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2013.
66. Thelwall, M., & Harries, G. (2004). Do the web sites of higher rated scholars have significantly more online impact? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,55(2), 149–159.
67. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other candidates. PLoS One, 8(5). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064841.
68. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2008). Online presentations as a source of scientific impact?: An analysis of PowerPoint files citing academic journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,59(5), 805–815.
69. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2014). Academia.edu: Social network or academic network? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,65(4), 721–731.
70. Thelwall, M., & Smith, A. (2002). Interlinking between Asia-Pacific university web sites. Scientometrics,55(3), 363–376.
71. Thelwall, M., & Sud, P. (2011). A comparison of methods for collecting web citation data for academic organizations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,62(8), 1488–1497.
72. Thelwall, M., Sud, P., & Wilkinson, D. (2012). Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,63(4), 805–816.
73. Thelwall, M., & Zuccala, A. (2008). A university-centred European Union link analysis. Scientometrics,75(3), 407–420.
74. Thomson Reuters (2012). Methodology for identifying highly-cited researchers.http://www.highlycited.com/methodology/. Accessed February 17, 2013.
75. Torres-Salinas, D., Ruiz-Pérez, R., & Delgado-López-Cózar, E. (2009). Google Scholar como herramienta para la evaluación científica. El profesional de la información,18(5), 501–510.
76. Van Leeuwen, T. N., Moed, H. F., Tijssen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics,51(1), 335–346.
77. Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2004). Can web citations be a measure of impact? An investigation of journals in the life sciences. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,41(1), 516–526. doi:10.1002/meet.1450410160.
78. Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2005). Web citation data for impact assessment: A comparison of four science disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,56(10), 1075–1087.
79. Vinkler, P. (1987). A Quasi-quantitative citation model. Scientometrics,12(1–2), 47–72.
80. Watson, A. B. (2009). Comparing citations and downloads for individual articles. Journal of Vision, 9(4). http://www.journalofvision.org/content/9/4/i. Accessed July 2, 2012.
81. Wilkinson, D., Harries, G., Thelwall, M., & Price, E. (2003). Motivations for academic web site interlinking: Evidence for the web as a novel source of information on informal scholarly communication. Journal of Information Science,29(1), 49–56.
82. Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control – tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Netherlands. SURFfoundation [report]. http://www.surf.nl/en/publicaties/Pages/Users_narcissism_control.aspx. Accessed March 6, 2013.
83. Ynalvez, M., Duque, R. B., Mbatia, P., Sooryamoorthy, R., Palackal, A., & Shrum, W. (2005). When do scientists “adopt” the Internet? Dimensions of connectivity in developing areas. Scientometrics,63(1), 39–67.
84. Zahedi, Z, Costas, R. & Wouters, P. (2013). How well developed are Altmetrics? Cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. In 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informatics Conference (p. 876–884). Vienna, Austria.
85. Zhao, D. (2005). Challenges of scholarly publications on the Web to the evaluation of science -A comparison of author visibility on the Web and in print journals. Information Processing & Management, 41(6), 1403-1418.