I like, I cite? Do Facebook likes predict the impact of scientific work?

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 8, 2015, Pages

  Ringelhan, Stefanie ^a   Wollersheim, Jutta ^a   Welpe, Isabell M ^a,b  

^a TUM SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT   (Germany)

^b Bavarian State Institute for Higher Education Research and Planning (IHF)   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIBLIOMETRICS; CITATION ANALYSIS; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; IMMEDIACY INDEX; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INTERNET; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; ONLINE MONITORING; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PUBLICATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SOCIAL NETWORK; WEB BROWSER; WEB OF SCIENCE; FORECASTING; HUMAN; SCIENCE; SOCIAL MEDIA; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TRENDS; UTILIZATION;

BIBLIOMETRICS; FORECASTING; HUMANS; INTERNET; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MANUSCRIPTS AS TOPIC; PUBLICATIONS; SCIENCE; SOCIAL MEDIA; SOCIAL NETWORKING;

EID: 84941979048     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134389     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Baum JAC. Free-riding on power laws: Questioning the validity of the Impact Factor as a measure of research quality in organization studies. Organization. 2011;18:449-466.
2. Priem J, Groth P, Taraborelli D. The altmetrics collection. PLOS ONE. 2012;7:e48753. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048753 PMID: 23133655
3. Evans JA, Foster JG. Metaknowledge. Science. 2011;331:721-725. doi: 10.1126/science.1201765 PMID: 21311014
4. Mayor J. Are scientists nearsighted gamblers? The misleading nature of impact factors. Frontiers in Psychology. 2010;1:1-2.
5. Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, De Rijcke S, Rafols I. Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature. 2015;520:429-431. doi: 10.1038/520429a PMID: 25903611
6. Adler NJ, Harzing A-W. When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning and Education. 2009;8:72-95.
7. Penner O, Pan RK, Petersen AM, Fortunato S. The case for caution in predicting scientists' future impact. Physics Today. 2013;66:8-9.
8. Penner O, Pan RK, Petersen AM, Kaski K, Fortunato S. On the predictability of future impact in science. Scientific Reports. 2013;3:1-8.
9. Alberts B. Impact Factor distortions. Science. 2013;340:787. doi: 10.1126/science.1240319 PMID: 23687012
10. Amat CB. Editorial and publication delay of papers submitted to 14 selected food research journals. Influence of online posting. Scientometrics. 2008;74:379-389.
11. Peng TQ, Zhu JJ. Where you publish matters most: A multilevel analysis of factors affecting citations of Internet studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2012;63:1789-1803.
12. Marx W, Gramm G. Literaturflut-Informationslawine-Wissensexplosion. Wächst der Wissenschaft das Wissen über den Kopf? Zentrale Informationsvermittlung der Chemisch-Physikalisch-Technischen Sektion der MPG am Max-Planck-Institut für Festkörperforschung. Stuttgart, Germany; 2002.
13. Shema H, Bar-Ilan J, Thelwall M. Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2014;65:1018-1027.
14. Aguinis H, Suárez-González I, Lannelongue G, Joo H. Scholarly impact revisited. Academy of Management Perspectives. 2012;26:105-132.
15. Neylon C, Wu S. Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biology. 2009;7:e1000242. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000242 PMID: 19918558
16. Thelwall M, Haustein S, Larivière V, Sugimoto CR. Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLOS ONE. 2013;8:e64841. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064841 PMID: 23724101
17. Harnad S, Brody T, Vallières F, Carr L, Hitchcock S, Gingras Y, et al. The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to Open Access. Serials Review. 2004;30:310-314.
18. Asur S, Huberman BA. Predicting the future with social media; Toronto, Canada. IEEE; 2010. pp-492-499.
19. Kosinski M, Stillwell D, Graepel T. Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013;110:5802-5805.
20. Preis T, Reith D, Stanley HE. Complex dynamics of our economic life on different scales: Insights from search engine query data. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 2010;368:5707-5719.
21. Preis T, Moat HS, Stanley HE. Quantifying trading behavior in financial markets using Google Trends. Scientific Reports. 2013;3:1-6.
22. Moat HS, Curme C, Avakian A, Kenett DY, Stanley HE, Preis T. Quantifying Wikipedia usage patterns before stock market moves. Scientific Reports. 2013;3:1-5.
23. Curme C, Preis T, Stanley HE, Moat HS. Quantifying the semantics of search behavior before stock market moves. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014;111:11600-11605.
24. Kenett DY, Morstatter F, Stanley HE, Liu H. Discovering social events through online attention. PLOS ONE. 2014;9:e102001. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102001 PMID: 25076410
25. Eysenbach G. Can Tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2011;13:e123. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2012 PMID: 22173204
26. Bollen J, Van De Sompel H, Smith JA, Luce R. Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: A comparison of download and citation data. Information Processing and Management. 2005;41:1419-1440.
27. Baek K, Holton A, Harp D, Yaschur C. The links that bind: Uncovering novel motivations for linking on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior. 2011;27:2243-2248.
28. Kuhrt N. Forscher-Ranking sieht Charité an der Spitze. Hamburg, Germany: Spiegel Online; 2013.
29. DORA. San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. San Francisco, CA; 2012.
30. Wilhite AW, Fong EA. Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science. 2012;335:542-543. doi: 10. 1126/science.1212540 PMID: 22301307
31. Ball P. Are scientific reputations boosted artificially? Nature News: Nature; 2011.
32. Smith LC. Citation analysis. Library trends. 1981;30:83-106.
33. MacRoberts MH, MacRoberts BR. Another test of the normative theory of citing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1987;38:305-306.
34. Schulz A-C, Nicolai AT. The intellectual link between management research and popularization media: A bibliometric analysis of the Harvard Business Review. Academy of Management Learning and Education. 2015;14:31-49.
35. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation. 2008;64:45-80.
36. Raj R-G, Zainab AN. Relative measure index: A metric to measure the quality of journals. Scientometrics. 2012;93:305-317.
37. McVeigh ME. Open Access journals in the ISI citation databases: Analysis of Impact Factors and citation patterns-A citation study from Thomson Scientific. Toronto, Canada: Thomson Corporation; 2004.
38. Tomer C. A statistical assessment of two measures of citation: The Impact Factor and the Immediacy Index. Information Processing and Management. 1986;22:251-258.
39. Callaham M, Wears RL, Weber E. Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002;287:2847-2850. PMID: 12038930
40. Heneberg P. Effects of print publication lag in dual format journals on scientometric indicators. PLOS ONE. 2013;8:e59877. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059877 PMID: 23573216
41. Torres D, Cabezas Á, Jiménez E. Altmetrics: New indicators for scientific communication in Web 2.0. Comunicar. 2013;41:53-60.
42. Lazer D, Pentland A, Adamic L, Aral S, Barabasi A-L, Devon B, et al. Computational social science. Science. 2009;323:721-723. doi: 10.1126/science.1167742 PMID: 19197046
43. Helbing D. Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature. 2013;497:51-59. doi: 10.1038/nature12047 PMID: 23636396
44. Conte R, Gilbert N, Bonelli G, Cioffi-Revilla C, Deffuant G, Kertesz J, et al. Manifesto of computational social science. The European Physical Journal Special Topics. 2012;214:325-346.
45. Fortunato S, Saramaki J, Onnela J-P. Adding network structure onto the map of collective behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2014;37:82-83. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X13001726 PMID: 24572224
46. Bentley RA, O'Brien MJ, Brock WA. Mapping collective behavior in the big-data era. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2014;37:63-76. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X13000289 PMID: 24572217
47. Onnela J-P, Reed-Tsochas. Spontaneous emergence of social influence in online systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010;107:18375-18380.
48. Radicchi F, Fortunato S, Markines B, Vespignani A. Diffusion of scientific credits and the ranking of scientists. Physical Review E. 2009;80:056103.
49. Mazloumian A, Eom Y-H, Helbing D, Lozano S, Fortunato S. How citation boosts promote scientific paradigm shifts and nobel prizes. PLOS ONE. 2011;6:e18975. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018975 PMID: 21573229
50. Radicchi F, Fortunato S, Castellano C. Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008;105:17268-17272.
51. Pan RK, Kaski K, Fortunato S. World citation and collaboration networks: Uncovering the role of geography in science. Scientific Reports. 2012;2:1-7.
52. Mazloumian A. Predicting scholars' scientific impact. PLOS ONE. 2012;7:e49246. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049246 PMID: 23185311
53. Balietti S, Mas M, Helbing D. On disciplinary fragmentation and scientific progress. PLOS ONE. 2015;10:e0118747. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118747 PMID: 25790025
54. Song X, Yan X, Li Y. Modelling liking networks in an online healthcare community: An exponential random graph model analysis approach. Journal of Information Science. 2015;41:89-96.
55. Sharma A, Cosley D. Do social explanations work? Studying and modeling the effects of social explanations in recommender systems; Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee; 2013. pp-1133-1144.
56. Letierce J, Passant A, Breslin J, Decker S. Understanding how Twitter is used to spread scientific messages. Web Science Conference (WebSci). Raleigh, NC; 2010.
57. Goodall AH. Highly cited leaders and the performance of research universities. Research Policy. 2009;38:1079-1092.
58. Keller RT. Predicting the performance and innovativeness of scientists and engineers. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2012;97:225-233. doi: 10.1037/a0025332 PMID: 21875172
59. Costas R, Zahedi Z, Wouters P. Do altmetrics correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:14014321. 2014.
60. Haustein S, Costas R, Lariviere V. Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLOS ONE. 2015;10:e0120495. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120495 PMID: 25780916
61. Hoffmann CP, Lutz C, Meckel M. Impact Factor 2.0: Applying social network analysis to scientific impact assessment; Big Island, HI. IEEE; 2014. pp. 1576-1585.
62. Meyer MW, Gupta V. The performance paradox. Research in Organizational Behavior. 1994;16:309-369.
63. Meyer MW. Can performance studies create actionable knowledge if we can't measure the performance of the firm? Journal of Management Inquiry. 2005;14:287-291.
64. Lin J, Fenner M. The many faces of article-level metrics. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2013;39:27-30.
65. Fausto S, Machado FA, Bento LFJ, Iamarino A, Nahas TR, Munger DS. Research blogging: Indexing and registering the change in science 2.0. PLOS ONE. 2012;7:e50109. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone. 0050109 PMID: 23251358