Altmetrics for Information Professionals: Past, Present and Future

Altmetrics for Information Professionals: Past, Present and Future

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 1-159

  Holmberg, Kim ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84966746666     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1016/C2014-0-03379-5     Document Type: Book

References (422)

1. Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A., Viel F. Assessing the accuracy of the h- and g-indexes for measuring researchers' productivity. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64(6):1224-1234.
2. Adamic L.A., Adar E. Friends and neighbors on the web. Social Networks 2003, 25(3):211-230.
3. Adamic L.A., Glance N. The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: Divided they blog 2005, 36-43. Retrieved on December 11, 2014, from. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1134277.
4. Adams T.M., Bullard K.A. A case study of librarian outreach to scientists: Collaborative research and scholarly communication in conservation biology. College & Undergraduate Libraries 2013, 21:377-395.
5. Adie E. Taking the alternative mainstream. El Profesional de la Información 2014, 23(4):349-351. Retrieved on February 5, 2015, from. 10.3145/epi.2014.jul.01.
6. Adie E. Attention! A study of open access vs non-open access articles. figshare 2014, Retrieved on February 5, 2015, from. 10.6084/m9.figshare.1213690.
7. Adie E., Roe W. Altmetric: Enriching scholarly content with article-level discussion and metrics. Learned Publishing 2013, 26(1).
8. Adler N., Harzing A.W. When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. The Academy of Management Learning & Education 2009, 8(1):72-95.
9. Aguillo I. Measuring the institutions' footprints in the web. Library High Tech 2009, 27(4):540-556.
10. Aguillo I. Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics 2012, 91:343-351.
11. Aguillo I., Bar-Ilan J., Levene M., Ortega J.L. Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics 2010, 85(1):243-256.
12. Alhoori H., Furuta R. Do altmetrics follow the crowd or does the crowd follow altmetrics? 2014, Retrieved on January 15, 2015, from. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6970193.
13. Alhoori H., Furuta R., Tabet M., Samaka M., Fox E.F. Altmetrics for country-level research assessment. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2014, 8839:59-64.
14. Allen H.G., Stanton T.R., Di Pietro F., Moseley G.L. Social media release increases dissemination of original articles in the clinical pain sciences. PLoS One 2013, 8(7):e68914.
15. Almind T.C., Ingwersen P. Informetric analyses on the World Wide Web: Methodological approaches to "webometrics". Journal of Documentation 1997, 53(4):404-426.
16. Alperin J.P. Ask not what altmetrics can do for you, but what altmetrics can do for developing countries. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2013, 39(4).
17. Archambault É., Campbell D., Gingras Y., Lariviére V. Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 60(7):1320-1326.
18. Ardanuy J. Sixty years of citation analysis studies in the humanities (1951-2010). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64(8):1751-1755.
19. Asur S., Huberman B.A. Predicting the future with social media. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology 2010, Vol. 1:492-499. Retrieved on December 9, 2014, from. http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.5699.
20. Baeza-Yates R., Ribeiro-Neto B. Modern information retrieval 1999, Addison Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc.
21. Bao P., Shen H.W., Chen W., Cheng X.Q. Cumulative effect in information diffusion: Empirical study on a microblogging network. PLoS One 2013, 8(19).
22. Barabási A.L., Albert R. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 1999, 286(5439):509-512.
23. Barbaro A., Gentill D., Rebuffi C. Altmetrics as new indicators of scientific impact. Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries 2014, 10(1).
24. Baribier G., Liu H. Data mining in social media. Social network data analytics 2011, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. C.C. Aggarwal (Ed.).
25. Bar-Ilan J. Search engine results over time-A case study on search engine stability. Cybermetrics 1999, 2/3(1). paper 1. Retrieved February 28, 2007, from. http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v2i1p1.pdf.
26. Bar-Ilan J. A microscopic link analysis of academic institutions within a country-The case of Israel. Scientometrics 2004, 59(3):391-403.
27. Bar-Ilan J. Journal report card. Scientometrics 2012, 92(2):249-260.
28. Bar-Ilan J. Evaluating the individual researcher-Adding an altmetric perspective. Research Trends 2014, (37):31-32.
29. Bar-Ilan J., Haustein S., Peters I., Priem J., Shema H., Terliesner J. Beyond citations: Scholars' visibility on the social web 2012, 98-109. Retrieved on January 14, 2015, from. http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5611.
30. Barjak F., Li X., Thelwall M. Which factors explain the web impact of scientists' personal homepages?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2007, 58(2):200-211.
31. Bartholomew R.E. Science for sale: The rise of predatory journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2014, 107(10):384-385.
32. Bernal J.D. Science in history 1971, MIT Press, Cambridge.
33. Bhattacharjee Y. Saudi universities offer cash in exchange for academic prestige. Science 2011, 334(6061):1344-1345.
34. Bik H.M., Goldstein M.C. An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS Biology 2013, 11(4):e1001535.
35. Bilder G., Fenner M., Lin J., Neylon C. ALM workshop 2014 report. figshare 2015, Retrieved on April 2, 2015, from. 10.6084/m9.figshare.1287503.
36. Björneborn L., Ingwersen P. Towards a basic framework for webometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2004, 55(14):1216-1227.
37. Blanchard O. Social media ROI 2011, Pearson Education, Inc, Boston, USA.
38. Bohannon J. Who's afraid of peer review?. Science 2013, 342(6143):6065. Retrieved on December 8, 2014, from. https://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full.
39. Bollen J., Mao H., Zeng X.-J. Twitter mood predicts the stock market. Journal of Computational Science 2011, 2(1):1-8.
40. Bollen J., Van de Sompel H., Hagberg A., Bettencourt L., Chute R., Rodriguez M.A., et al. Clickstream data yields high-resolution maps of science. PLoS One 2009, 4(3):e4803.
41. Bollen J., Van De Sompel H., Hagberg A., Chute R. A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS One 2009, 4(6).
42. Bollen J., Van de Sompel H., Smith J.A., Luce R. Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: A comparison of download and citation data. Information Processing and Management 2005, 41(6):1419-1440.
43. Bollen J., Van de Stompel H. Usage impact factor: The effects of sample characteristics on usage-based impact metrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59(1):136-149.
44. Bonacich P. Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology 1987, 92(5):1170-1182.
45. Boon C.Y., Foon J.W.J. Altmetrics is an indication of quality research or just HOT topics 2014, Paper 3. Retrieved on April 2, 2015, from. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/2014/altmetrics/3.
46. Borgman C.L. Scholarly communication and bibliometrics revisited. The web of knowledge-A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield 2000, ASIS. B. Cronin, H.B. Atkins (Eds.).
47. Borgman C., Furner J. Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 2002, 36(1):2-72.
48. Bornmann L. Measuring the societal impact of research. EMBO Reports 2012, 13(8).
49. Bornmann L. How to analyze percentile citation impact data meaningfully in bibliometrics: The statistical analysis of distributions, percentile rank classes, and top-cited papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64(3):587-595.
50. Bornmann L. What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64(2):217-233.
51. Bornmann L. Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000 Prime. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8(4):935-950.
52. Bornmann, L. (2014b). Which kind of papers has higher or lower altmetric counts? A study using article-level metrics from PLoS and F1000 Prime. arXiv:1409.2863v1 [cs.DL]. Retrieved on January 18, 2015, from, . http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.2863.
53. Bornmann L. Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8:895-903.
54. Bornmann, L. (2014d). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. arXiv:1407.8010 [cs.DL]. Retrieved on January 29, 2015, from, . http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.8010.
55. Bornmann L., Daniel H.D. Multiple publications on a single research study: does it pay? The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 2007, 58(8):1100-1117.
56. Bornmann L., de Moya Anegón F., Leydesdorff L. The new Excellence Indicator in the World Report of the SCImago Institutions Rankings 2011. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6(2):333-335.
57. Bornmann L., Leydesdorff L. Scientometrics in a changing research landscape. EMBO Reports 2014, 15(12):1228-1232.
58. Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (in press). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Retrieved on January 14, 2015, from, . http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4578.
59. Bornmann L., Schier H., Marx W., Daniel H.-D. What factors determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality?. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6(1):11-18.
60. Bowman, T. D., Demarest, B., Weingart, S. B., Simpson, G. L., Lariviere, V., Thelwall, M., et al. (2013, July 16-19). Mapping DH through heterogeneous communicative practices. Paper presented at Digital Humanities 2013, Lincoln, Nebraska.
61. Boyack K.W. Mapping knowledge domains: Characterizing PNAS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2004, 101:5192-5199.
62. Boyack K.W., Klavans R. Predicting the importance of current papers. Proceedings of the 10th meeting of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics (ISSI 2005) 2005, Vol. 1:335-342. Karolinska University Press, Stockholm, Sweden. P. Ingwersen, B. Larsen (Eds.).
63. Boyack K.W., Klavans R. Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citations: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010, 61(12):2389-2404.
64. Boyack K.W., Klavans R. Creation of a highly detailed, dynamic, global model and map of science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65(4):670-685.
65. boyd d Streams of content, limited attention: The flow of information through social media. EDUCAUSE Review 2010, 45(5):26-36. Retrieved on December 11, 2014, from. http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/streams-content-limited-attention-flow-information-through-social-media.
66. boyd, d., & Crawford, K. (2011). Six provocations for Big Data. A paper presented at Oxford Internet Institute's "A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society" on September 21, 2011. Retrieved on December 11, 2014, from, . http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1926431.
67. boyd d., Ellison N.B. Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2007, 13:210-230.
68. boyd d, Golder S., Lotan G. Tweet, tweet, retweet: conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter 2010, 1-10. Retrieved on January 20, 2015, from. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5428313.
69. Bradford S.C. Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering: An Illustrated Weekly Journal (London) 1934, 137(January 26):85-86.
70. Brenner J., Smith A. 72% of online adults are social networking site users. PEW Internet 2013, Retrieved on March 31, 2015, from. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/social-networking-sites.aspx.
71. Brigham T.J. An introduction to altmetrics. Medical Reference Services Quarterly 2014, 33(4):438-447.
72. Brill E. Transformation-based error-driven learning and natural language processing: A case study in part-of-speech tagging. Computational Linguistics 1995, 21(4):543-565.
73. Brin S., Page L. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 1998, 30(1-7):107-117.
74. Broad W.J. The publishing game: Getting more for less. Science 1981, 211:1137-1139.
75. Broadus R.N. Toward a definition of "bibliometrics". Scientometrics 1987, 12(5-6):373-379.
76. Brody T., Harnad S., Carr L. Earlier web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2006, 57(8):1060-1072.
77. Brooks T.A. Private acts and public objects: An investigation of citer motivations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1985, 36:223-229.
78. Brooks T.A. How good are the best papers of JASIS?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 2000, 51:485-486.
79. Brown C. 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 2007, 58(13):2055-2065.
80. Brownstein J.S., Freifeld C.C., Madoff L.C. Digital disease detection-Harnessing the web for public health surveillance. The New England Journal of Medicine 2010, 360:2153-2157. Retrieved on December 10, 2014, from. 10.1056/NEJMp0900702.
81. Bruns A. How long is a tweet? Mapping dynamic conversation networks on Twitter using Gawk and Gephi. Information, Communication & Society 2012, 15(9):1323-1351.
82. Bruns A., Burgess J. The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of Ad Hoc publics 2011, University of Iceland, Reykjavik.
83. Bruns A., Burgess J. Researching news discussion on Twitter: New methodologies. Journalism Studies 2012, 13(5-6):801-814.
84. Bruns A., Stieglitz S. Quantitative approaches to comparing communication patterns on Twitter. Journal of Technology in Human Services 2012, 30:160-185.
85. Bruns A., Stieglitz S. Towards more systematic Twitter analysis: Metrics for tweeting activities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 2013, 16(2):1-18.
86. Bruns A., Stieglitz S. Twitter data: What do they represent?. it-Information Technology 2014, 56(5):240-245. Retrieved on January 28, 2015, from. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/77546/.
87. Buckland M., Gey F. The relationship between recall and precision. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1994, 45(1):12-19.
88. Burrell Q.L. Hirsch index or Hirsch rate? Some thoughts arising from Liang's data. Scientometrics 2007, 73(1):19-28.
89. Burrell Q.L. Formulae for the h-index: A lack of robustness in Lotkaian informetrics?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64(7):1504-1514.
90. Caci B., Cardaci M., Tabacchi M.E., Scrima F. Personality variables as predictors of Facebook usage. Psychological Reports 2014, 114(2):428-439.
91. Callahan E.S., Herring S.C. Cultural bias in Wikipedia content on famous persons. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2011, 62(10):1899-1915.
92. Callon M., Courtial J.-P., Turner W.A., Bauin S. From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information 1983, 22(2):191-235.
93. Cameron W.B. Informal sociology: A casual introduction to sociological thinking 1963, Random House, New York.
94. Cano V. Citation behavior: Classification, utility, and location. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1989, 40:284-290.
95. Castillo C., Mendoza M., Poblete B. Information credibility on Twitter 2011, Retrieved on April 2, 2015, from. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1963500.
96. Chakraborty N. Activities and reasons for using social networking sites by research scholars in NEHU: A study on Facebook and ResearchGate. Planner-2012 2012, 19-27.
97. Chen K., Tang M., Wang C., Hsiang J. Exploring alternative metrics of scholarly performance in the social sciences and humanities in Taiwan. Scientometrics 2015, 102:97-112.
98. Chubin D.E., Moitra S.D. Content analysis of references: Adjunct or alternative to citation counting?. Social Studies of Science 1975, 5:426-441.
99. Ciulla F., Mocanu D., Baronchelli A., Gonçalves B., Perra N., Vespignani A. Beating the news using social media: The case study of American Idol. EPJ Data Science 2012, 1(8). Retrieved on December 30, 2014, from. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjds8.
100. Cole J.R. A short history of the use of citations as a measure of the impact of scientific and scholarly work. The web of knowledge-A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield 2000, ASIS. B. Cronin, H.B. Atkins (Eds.).
101. Correa T., Hinsley A.W., de Zúñiga H.G. Who interacts on the web? The intersection of users' personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior 2010, 26(2):247-253.
102. Costas R., Bordons M. Do age and professional rank influence the order of authorship in scientific publications? Some evidence from a micro-level perspective. Scientometrics 2011, 88(1):145-161.
103. Costas R., Zahedi Z., Wouters P. Disentangling the meaning of "altmetrics": Content analysis of Web of Science scientific publications 2014, Retrieved on January 29, 2015, from. http://altmetrics.org/altmetrics14/.
104. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2014b). Do "atmetrics" correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. arXiv:1401.4321 [cs.DL]. Retrieved on January 29, 2015, from, . http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4321.
105. Cronin B. Bibliometrics and beyond: Some thoughts on web-based citation analysis. Journal of Information Science 2001, 27(1):1-7.
106. Cronin B. The evolving indicator space (iSpace). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64(8):1523-1525.
107. Crotty D. Altmetrics: Finding meaningful needles in the data haystack. Serials Review 2014, 40:141-146.
108. Darling E.S., Shiffman D., Côté I.M., Drew J.A. The role of Twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution 2013, 6:32-43. Retrieved on January 27, 2015, from. http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/IEE/article/view/4625/4830.
109. De Maeyer J. Towards a hyperlinked society: A critical review of link studies. New Media & Society 2012, 15(5):737-751.
110. de Winter J.C.F. The relationship between tweets, citations, and article views for PLOS ONE articles. Scientometrics 2015, 102(2):1773-1779.
111. Dewett T., DeNisi A.S. Exploring scholarly reputation: It's more than just productivity. Scientometrics 2004, 60:249-272.
112. Didegah F., Thelwall M. Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64(5):1055-1064.
113. Ding Y., Yan E., Frazho A., Caverlee J. PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009, 60(11):2229-2243.
114. Dinsmore A. Alternative impact: Can we track the impact of research outside of academia?. Life from a Wellcome Trust Perspective 2014, Retrieved on January 16, 2015, from. http://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2014/11/25/alternative-impact-can-we-track-the-impact-of-research-outside-of-academia/.
115. Dinsmore A., Allen L., Dolby K. Alternative perspectives on impact: The potential of ALMs and altmetrics to inform funders about research impact. PLoS Biology 2014, 12(11):e1002003.
116. Dryad. What were the most downloaded data packages in 2014?. Dryad News and Views 2015, January 16, 2015. Retrieved on January 28, 2015, from. http://blog.datadryad.org/2015/01/16/what-were-the-most-downloaded-data-packages-in-2014/.
117. Ebner M., Reinhardt W. Social networking in scientific conferences-Twitter as tool for strengthen a scientific community 2009, Retrieved on January 26, 2015, from. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216015988_Social_networking_in_scientific_conferences_--_Twitter_as_tool_for_strengthen_a_scientific_community.
118. Egghe L. How to improve the h-index. The Scientist 2006, 20(3):315-321.
119. Egghe L. The measures precision, recall, fallout and miss as a function of the number of retrieved documents and their mutual interrelations. Information Processing and Management 2008, 44:856-876.
120. Egghe L., Rousseau R., Van Hooydonk G. Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 2000, 51(2):145-157.
121. Espadas J., Calero C., Piattini M. Web site visibility evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59(11):1727-1742.
122. Evans P., Krauthammer M. Exploring the use of social media to measure journal article impact 2011, Retrieved on April 2, 2015, from. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3243242/.
123. 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(4):e123.
124. Falagas M.E., Pitsouni E.I., Malietzis G.A., Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB Journal 2008, 22(2):338-342.
125. Ferguson C., Marcus A., Oransky I. Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature 2014, November 2014. Retrieved on January 20, 2015, from. http://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400.
126. Ferrara E., Romero A.E. Scientific impact evaluation and the effect of self-citations: Mitigating the bias by discounting the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64(11):2332-2339.
127. Ferrara, E., Varol, O., Davis, C., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2014). The rise of social bots. arXiv:1407.5225 [cs.SI]. Retrieved on January 28, 2015, from, . http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.5225.
128. Figueiredo F., Pinto H., Belém F., Almeida J., Goncalces M., Fernandes D., et al. Assessing the quality of textual features in social media. Information Processing and Management 2013, 49(1):222-247.
129. Finardi U. On the time evolution of received citations, in different scientific fields: An empirical study. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8(1):13-24.
130. Frandsen T.F., Nicolaisen J. The ripple effect: Citation chain reactions of a nobel prize. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64(3):437-447.
131. Friesike S., Schildhauer T. Open science: Many good resolutions, very few incentives, yet. Incentives and performance. Governance of research organizations 2015, Springer. I.M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, M. Osterloh (Eds.).
132. Galligan F., Dyas-Correia S. Altmetrics: Rethinking the way we measure. Serials Review 2013, 39:56-61.
133. Galloway L.M., Pease J.L., Rauh A.E. Introduction to altmetrics for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) librarians. Science & Technology Libraries 2013, 32:335-345.
134. Garfield E. Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 1955, 122(3159):108-111.
135. Garfield E. Citation indexing. It's theory and application in science, technology and humanities 1979, Wiley, New York.
136. Gauffriau M., Larsen P.O. Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on publication and citation studies. Scientometrics 2005, 64(1):85-93.
137. Gerber A. Online trends from the first German study on science communication. Science and the internet 2012, 13-18. Düsseldorf University Press, Düsseldorf. A. Tokar, M. Beurskens, S. Keuneke, M. Mahrt, I. Peters, C. Puschmann, T. van Treeck, K. Weller (Eds.).
138. Ginsberg J., Mohebbi M.H., Patel R.S., Brammer L., Smolinski M.S., Brilliant L. Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data. Nature 2009, 457:1012-1014.
139. Goffman W., Newill V.A. Generalization of epidemic theory: An application to the transmission of ideas. Nature 1964, (4953). October 17.
140. Golbeck J., Grimes J.M., Rogers A. Twitter use by the U.S. Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010, 61(8):1612-1621.
141. González-Pereira B., Guerrero-Bote V.P., Moya-Anegón F. A new approach to the metric of journals' scientific prestige: The SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4(3):379-391.
142. Goodhart, C. A. E. (1975). Problems of monetary management: The U.K. experience. Papers in Monetary Economics.
143. Gordon M., Kochen M. Recall-precision trade-off: A derivation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1989, 40(3):145-151.
144. Graham M., Hale S.A., Gaffney D. Where in the world are you? Geolocation and language identification in Twitter. Professional Geographer 2013, 66(4):568-578.
145. Groth, P., & Gurney, T. (2010). Studying scientific discourse on the web using bibliometrics: A chemistry blogging case study. Presented at the WebSci10: Extending the Frontiers of Society On-Line. Raleigh, NC. Retrieved from, . http://wiki.few.vu.nl/sms/images/9/9c/Websci10-FINAL-29-4-2010f.pdf.
146. Gruzd A., Goertzen M., Mai P. Survey results highlights: Trends in scholarly communication and knowledge dissemination in the age of social media social media lab report 2012, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
147. Gruzd N., Staves K., Wilk A. Tenure and promotion in the age of online social media. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2011, 48(1):1-9.
148. Gu F., Widén-Wulff G. Scholarly communication and possible changes in the context of social media: A Finnish case study. The Electronic Library 2011, 29(6):762-776.
149. Gunn W. Social signals reflect academic impact: What it means when a scholar adds a paper to Mendeley. Information Standards Quarterly 2013, 25(3).
150. Halavais A. The hyperlink as organizing principle. The hyperlinked society 2008, 39-55. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. J. Turow, L. Tsui (Eds.).
151. Halavais A., Lackaff D. An analysis of topical coverage of Wikipedia. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2008, 13(2):429-440.
152. Hammarfelt B. Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics 2014, 101:1419-1430.
153. Harzing A.W. The publish or perish book: Your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis 2010, Tarma Software Research, Melbourne.
154. Harzing A.W. A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics 2014, 98(1):565-575.
155. Haustein S., Bowman T.D., Holmberg K., Larivière V., Peters I. Astrophysicists on Twitter: An in-depth analysis of tweeting and scientific publication behavior. Aslib Journal of Information Management 2014, 66(3):279-296.
156. Haustein, S., Bowman, T.D., Macaluso, B., Sugimoto, C.R., Larivière, V., & Börner, K. (2014a). Measuring Twitter activity of arXiv e-prints and published papers. figshare. Retrieved on January 23, 2015. doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.1041514.
157. Haustein S., Costas R., Larivière V. Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS One 2015, 10(3):e0120495.
158. Haustein S., Larivière V., Thelwall M., Amoyt D., Peters I. Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ?. it-Information Technology 2014, 56(5):207-215.
159. Haustein S., Peters I., Bar-Ilan J., Priem J., Shema H., Terliesner J. Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics 2014, 101(2):1145-1163.
160. Haustein S., Peters I., Sugimoto C.R., Thelwall M., Larivière V. Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65(4):656-669.
161. Haustein S., Siebenlist T. Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5(3):446-457.
162. Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., Holmberg, K., Tsou, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Lariviére, V. (in press (a)). Automated Twitter accounts in scholarly communication: Do bots threaten the validity of tweets as impact measures? arXiv version available at: . http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1410/1410.4139.pdf.
163. Haustein, S., Bowman, T., & Costas, R. (in press (b)). Interpreting "altmetrics": Viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories. To be published In Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of informetrics: A festschrift in honor of blaise cronin.
164. Heimeriks G., Van den Besselaar P. Analyzing hyperlinks networks: The meaning of hyperlink based indicators of knowledge production. Cybermetrics 2006, 10(1). paper 1. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from. http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v10i1p1.pdf.
165. Hennig-Thurau T., Malthouse E.C., Friege C., Gensler S., Lobschat L., Rangaswamy A., et al. The impact of new media on customer relationships. Journal of Service Research 2010, 13(3):311-330.
166. Hill C. Introducing the research resource identification initiative at PLOS Biology & PLOS Genetics. PLoS Community Blog 2015, Retrieved on April 2, 2015, from. http://blogs.plos.org/biologue/2015/01/29/introducing-research-resource-identification-initiative-plos-biology-plos-genetics/.
167. Hirsch J.E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2005, 102(46):16569-16572.
168. Hoffman D.L., Fodor M. Can you measure the ROI of your social media marketing?. MIT Sloan Management Review 2010, 52(1).
169. Holmberg K. Webometric Network Analysis-Mapping cooperation and geopolitical connections between local government administration on the Web 2009, Dissertation, Åbo Akademi UP, Åbo, Available online at. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-765-511-8.
170. Holmberg K. Co-inlinking to a municipal Web space: A webometric and content analysis. Scientometrics 2010, 83:851-862.
171. Holmberg K. Discovering shared interests through co-outlinking in a municipal web space 2011, Durban, Republic of South Africa.
172. Holmberg K. The impact of retweeting 2014, Retrieved on February 5, 2015, from. 10.6084/m9.figshare.1037555.
173. Holmberg, K. (in press). Online attention of universities in Finland: Are the bigger universities bigger online too? To appear in the Proceedings of the ISSI Conference.
174. Holmberg K., Bowman T.D., Haustein S., Peters I. Astrophysicists' conversational connections on Twitter. PLoS One 2014, 9(8):e106086. Available at:. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0106086.
175. Holmberg K., Thelwall M. Local government web sites in Finland: A geographic and webometric analysis. Scientometrics 2009, 79(1).
176. Holmberg K., Thelwall M. Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics 2014, 101(2):1027-1042.
177. Horowitz, B. (February 16, 2006). Creators, synthesizers, and consumers. Elatable. Blogger. Retrieved on January 15, 2015, from, . http://blog.elatable.com/2006/02/creators-synthesizers-and-consumers.html.
178. Howard J. Rise of "altmetrics" revives questions about how to measure impact of research. The Chronicle of Higher Education 2013, Published June 3, 2013. Retrieved on January 18, 2015, from. http://chronicle.com/article/Rise-of-Altmetrics-Revives/139557/.
179. Hsu C., Park H.W. Sociology of hyperlink networks of Web 1.0, Web 2.0, and Twitter: A case study of South Korea. Social Science Computer Review 2011, 29(3):354-368.
180. Hughes D.J., Rowe M., Batey M., Lee A. A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human Behavior 2012, 28:561-569.
181. Ingwersen P. The calculation of Web Impact Factors. Journal of Documentation 1998, 54(2):236-243.
182. Ingwersen P. The pragmatics of a diachronic journal impact factor. Scientometrics 2012, 92(2):319-324.
183. Ingwersen P. Scientific dataset: Informetrics characteristics and social utility metrics for biodiversity data sources. Library and information sciences 2014, Springer. C. Chen, R. Larsen (Eds.).
184. Jansen B.J., Zhang M., Sobel K., Chowdury A. Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009, 60(11):2169-2188.
185. Java A., Song X., Finin T., Tseng B. Why we Twitter: An analysis of a microblogging community. Lectures Notes in Computer Science 2009, 5439:118-138.
186. Jensen L.J., Saric J., Bork P. Literature mining for the biologist: From information retrieval to biological discovery. Nature Reviews Genetics 2006, 7:119-129.
187. Jimoyiannis A., Angelaina S. Towards an analysis framework for investigating students' engagement and learning in educational blogs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2012, 28(3):222-234.
188. Jones J.W., McCullough L.B. Publishing corruption discussion: Predatory journalism. Journal of Vascular Surgery 2014, 59(2):536-537.
189. Južnič P., Vilar P., Bartol T. What do researchers think about altmetrics and are they familiar with their abilities?. Proceedings of Libraries in the Digital Age (LIDA) 2011, vol. 13. Retrieved on January 12, 2015, from. http://ozk.unizd.hr/proceedings/index.php/lida/article/view/128/131.
190. Kaur J., Hoang D.T., Sun X., Possamai L., JafariAsbagh M., Patil S., et al. Scholarometer: A social framework for analyzing impact across disciplines. PLoS One 2012, 7(9):e43235.
191. Kelly B. Using social media to enhance your research activities 2013, Retrieved on January 15, 2015, from. http://opus.bath.ac.uk/35624/.
192. Kessler M.M. Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation 1963, 14(1):10-25.
193. Kessler M.M. Comparison of results of bibliographic coupling and analytic subject indexing. American Documentation 1965, 16:223-233.
194. Kim M., Park H.W. Measuring Twitter-based political participation and deliberation in the South Korean context by using social network and Triple Helix indicators. Scientometrics 2012, 90:121-140.
195. Kim K.S., Sin C.S.J., Tsai T.I. Individual differences in social media use for information seeking. Journal of Academic Librarianship 2014, 40(2):171-178.
196. King J. A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science 1987, 13:261-276.
197. Kircz J.G. Modularity: The next form of scientific information presentation?. Journal of Documentation 1998, 54(2):210-235.
198. Kirilenko A.P., Stepchenkova S.O. Public microblogging on climate change: One year of Twitter worldwide. Global Environmental Change 2014, 26:171-182.
199. Kjellberg S. Blogs as interfaces between several worlds: A case study of the Swedish academic blogosphere. Human IT 2009, 10(3):1-45. Retrieved on January 15, 2015, from. http://etjanst.hb.se/bhs/ith/3-10/sk_eng.pdf.
200. Kjellberg S. I am a blogging researcher: Motivations for blogging in a scholarly context. First Monday 2010, 15(8). Retrieved on January 15, 2015, from. http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2962/2580.
201. Konkiel S. Tracking citations and altmetrics for research data: Challenges and opportunities. Bulletin of the Association for the Information Science and Technology 2013, 39(6).
202. Konkiel S., Piwowar H., Priem J. The imperative for open altmetrics. Journal of Electronic Publishing 2014, 17(3).
203. Konkiel S., Scherer D. New opportunities for repositories in the age of altmetrics. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2013, 39:4.
204. Kousha K., Thelwall M. How is science cited on the web? A classification of Google unique web citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2007, 58(11):1631-1644.
205. Kousha K., Thelwall M. Assessing the impact of disciplinary research on teaching: An automatic analysis of online syllabuses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59(13):2060-2069.
206. Kousha K., Thelwall M. Google Book Search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009, 60(8):1537-1549.
207. Kousha K., Thelwall M., Abdoli M. The role of online videos in research communication: A content analysis of YouTube videos cited in academic publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012, 63(9):1710-1727.
208. Kousha K., Thelwall M., Rezaie S. Using the web for research evaluation: The integrated online impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4(1):124-135.
209. Kousha K., Thelwall M., Rezaie S. Can the impact of scholarly images be assessed online? An exploratory study using image identification technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010, 61(9):1734-1744.
210. Kousha K., Thelwall M., Rezaie S. Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2011, 62(11):2147-2164.
211. Kramer A.D.I., Guillory J.E., Hancock J.T. Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2014, 111(24):8788-8790.
212. Krippendorff K. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology 2004, Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
213. Kwok R. Altmetrics make their mark. Nature 2013, 500:491-493.
214. Labbé C., Labbé D. Duplicate and fake publications in the scientific literature: How many SCIgen papers in computer science?. Scientometrics 2013, 94(1):379-396.
215. Lapinski, S., Piwowar, H., & Priem, J. (2013). Riding the crest of the altmetrics wave: How librarians can help prepare faculty for the next generation of research impact metrics. arXiv:1305.3328. [cs.DL] Retrieved on January 26, 2015, from, . http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3328.
216. Lariviére V. The decade of metrics? Examining the evolution of metrics within and outside LIS. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012, 38(8).
217. Lariviére V., Gingras Y. The impact factor's Matthew effect: A natural experiment in bibliometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010, 61(2):424-427.
218. Larivière V., Gingras Y., Archambault É. The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009, 60(4):858-862.
219. Lariviére V., Lozano G.A., Gingras Y. Are elite journals declining?. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65(4):649-655.
220. Larsen P.O., von Ins M. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics 2010, 84(3):575-603.
221. Lawrence P. Lost in publications: How measurement harms science. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8:9-11.
222. Leahey E. Not by productivity alone: How visibility and specialization contribute to academic earnings. American Sociological Review 2007, 72(4):533-561.
223. Lee M., Park H.W. Exploring the web visibility of world-class universities. Scientometrics 2012, 90:201-218.
224. Lerman K., Ghosh R. Information contagion: An empirical study of the spread of news on Digg and Twitter social networks 2010, Retrieved on December 9, 2014, from. http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM10/paper/view/1509.
225. Letierce J., Passant A., Decker S., Breslin J.G. Understanding how Twitter is used to spread scientific messages 2010, Retrieved on January 26, 2015, from. http://journal.webscience.org/314/.
226. Leydesdorff L. Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59(2):278-287.
227. Leydesdorff L. Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers. Scientometrics 2012, 92(2):355-365.
228. Leydesdorff L., Bornmann L., Mutz R., Opthof T. Turning the tables in citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2011, 62(7):1370-1381.
229. Leydesdorff L., Park H.W., Wagner C. International coauthorship relations in the Social Sciences Citation Index: Is internalization leading the network?. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65(10):2111-2126.
230. Li X., Thelwall M. F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators 2012, 541-551. Available at. http://2012.sticonference.org/Proceedings/vol2/Li_F1000_541.pdf, E. Archambault, Y. Gingras, V. Lariviere (Eds.).
231. Li X., Thelwall M., Giustini D. Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics 2012, 91:461-471.
232. Li X., Thelwall M., Musgrove P., Wilkinson D. The relationship between the WIFs or inlinks of computer science departments in UK and their RAE ratings or research productivities in 2001. Scientometrics 2003, 57(2):239-255.
233. Li J., Willett P. ArticleRank: A PageRank-based alternative to numbers of citations for analysing citation networks. Aslib Proceedings 2009, 61(6):605-618.
234. Lillquist E., Green S. The discipline dependence of citation statistics. Scientometrics 2010, 84(3):749-762.
235. Lin J., Fenner M. Altmetrics in evolution: Defining and redefining the ontology of article-level metrics. Information Standards Quarterly 2013, 25(2):20-26.
236. Lin J., Fenner M. The many faces of article-level metrics. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2013, 39(4).
237. Lindquist M.G. Not your father's references: Citations in the digital space. Journal of Electronic Publishing 1999, 4(3).
238. Liu J., Adie E. New perspectives on article-level metrics: Developing ways to assess research uptake and impact online. Insights: The UKSG Journal 2013, 26(2):153-158.
239. López-Cózar E.D., Robinson-García N., Torres-Salinas D. The Googel Scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65(3):446-454.
240. Lotka A.J. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 1926, 16(12):317-324.
241. Ma N., Guan J., Zhao Y. Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis. Information Processing & Management 2008, 44(2):800-810.
242. MacRoberts M.H., MacRoberts B.R. Problems of citation analysis: A study of uncited and seldom-cited influences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010, 61(1):1-12.
243. Marx W., Bornmann L. Letter to the editor: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2013, 65(4):866-867.
244. Mas-Bleda A., Thelwall M., Kousha K., Aguillo I. Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web?. Scientometrics 2014, 101:337-356.
245. Matthews J.N.A. Online metrics show who's saying what about scientists' research. Physics Today 2015, 68(1).
246. Matthews C. More than 11 million young people have fled Facebook since 2011. Time 2015, January 15, 2014. Retrieved on February 5, 2015, from. http://business.time.com/2014/01/15/more-than-11-million-young-people-have-fled-facebook-since-2011/.
247. Meho L.I., Sugimoto C.R. Assessing the scholarly impact of information studies: A tale of two citation databases-Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009, 60(12):2499-2508.
248. Meho L.I., Yang K. Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science vs. Scopus vs. Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2007, 58(13):2105-2125.
249. Merton R.K. The normative structure of science 1942.
250. Merton R.K. The Matthew effect in science. Science 1968, 159(3810):56-63.
251. Moed H.F. Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2005, 56(10):1088-1097.
252. Moed H.F. Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4:265-277.
253. Moed H.F., Burger W.J.M., Frankfort J.G., Van Raan A.F.J. The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Research Policy 1985, 14:131-149.
254. Moed H.F., De Bruin R.E., Van Leeuwen T.N. New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance-Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics 1995, 33(3):381-422.
255. Mohammadi E., Thelwall M. Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels. Scientometrics 2013, 97:383-395.
256. Mohammadi E., Thelwall M. Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65(8):1627-1638.
257. Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (in press (a)). Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
258. Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (in press (b)). Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
259. Moravcsik M.J., Murugesan P. Some results on the function and quality of citations. Social Studies of Science 1975, 5:86-92.
260. Mulligan A., Hall L., Raphael E. Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64(1):132-161.
261. Murdough C. Social media measurement. Journal of Interactive Advertising 2009, 10(1):94-99.
262. NPG 2014 Social Networks survey. figshare 2014, Nature Publishing Group, Retrieved on January 14, 2015, from. 10.6084/m9.figshare.1132584.
263. Nentwich M., König R. Academia goes Facebook? The potential of social network sites in the scholarly realm. Opening Science 2014, 107-124. Retrieved on January 18, 2015, from. http://book.openingscience.org/tools/academia_goes_facebook.html.
264. Neuendorf K.A. The content analysis guidebook 2002, Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
265. Newman M.E.J. Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf's law. Contemporary Physics 2005, 46(5):323-351.
266. Neylon C., Wu S. Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biology 2009, 7(11).
267. Nicholas D., Huntington P., Williams P. Evaluating metrics for comparing the use of web sites: A case study of two consumer health web sites. Journal of Information Science 2002, 28(1):63-75.
268. Nicolaisen J. Citation analysis. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 2007, 41(1):609-641.
269. Nielsen F.Å. Scientific citations in Wikipedia. First Monday 2007, 12(8). Retrieved on January 14, 2015, from. http://firstmonday.org/article/view/1997/1872.
270. Nielsen M. Definitions of open science?. Okfn Mailing List 2011, Retrieved on January 13, 2015. https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/2011-July/000907.html.
271. O'Reilly T. What is Web 2.0 2005, Retrieved on March 30, 2015, from. http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.
272. Ossenblok T.L.B., Verleysen F.T., Engels T.C.E. Coauthorship of journal articles and book chapters in the social sciences and humanities (2000-2010). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65(5):882-897.
273. Osterieder A. The value and use of social media as communication tool in the plant sciences. Plant Methods 2013, 9(26). Retrieved on January 12, 2015, from. http://www.plantmethods.com/content/9/1/26.
274. Otte E., Rousseau R. Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science 2002, 28(6):441-453.
275. Ovadia S. When social media meets scholarly publishing. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian 2013, 32(3):194-198.
276. Park H.W. Mapping the e-science landscape in South Korea using webometrics method. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2010, 15(2):211-229.
277. Park H.W., Thelwall M., Kluver R. Political hyperlinking in South Korea: Technical indicators of ideology and content. Sociological Research Online 2005, 10(3).
278. Pearce W., Holmberg K., Hellsten I., Nerlich B. Climate change on Twitter: Topics, communities and conversations about the 2013 IPCC report. PLoS One 2014, 9(4):e94785.
279. Peters I., Jobmann A., Eppelin A., Hoffmann C.P., Künne S., Wollnik-Korn G. Altmetrics for large, multidisciplinary research groups: A case study of the Leibniz Association. Proceedings of the libraries in the digital age conference 2014, Vol. 13. Retrieved on January 29, 2015, from. http://ozk.unizd.hr/proceedings/index.php/lida/article/view/162.
280. Peters, I., Kraker, P., Lex, E., Gumpenberger, C., & Gorraiz, J. (2015). Research data explored: citations versus altmetrics. arXiv:1501.03342 [cs.DL]. Retrieved on January 26, 2015, from, . http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03342.
281. Pinkowitz L. Research dissemination and impact: Evidence from web site downloads. The Journal of Finance 2002, LVII(1).
282. Piro F.N., Aksnes D.W., Rørstad K. A macro analysis of productivity differences across fields: Challenges in the measurement of scientific publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64(2):307-320.
283. Piwowar H. Value all research products. Nature 2013, 493.
284. Piwowar H. Altmetrics: What, why and where?. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2013, 39(4). Retrieved on April 2, 2015, from. https://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Apr-13/AprMay13_Piwowar.html.
285. Piwowar H., Priem J. The power of altmetrics on a CV. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2013, 39(4).
286. PLOS PLOS submission to HEFCE RFI on metrics in research assessment. figshare 2014, Retrieved on January 31, 2015, from. 10.6084/m9.figshare.1089555.
287. Podlubny I. Comparison of scientific impact expressed by the number of citations in different fields of science. Scientometrics 2005, 64(1):95-99.
288. Ponte D., Simon J. Scholarly communication 2.0: Exploring researchers' opinions on Web 2.0 for scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and dissemination. Serials Review 2011, 37(3):149-156.
289. Price D.D.S. A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1976, 27:292-306.
290. Priem J. As scholars undertake a great migration to online publishing, altmetrics stands to provide an academic measurement of Twitter and other online activity. Impact of Social Sciences, London School of Economics and Political Science 2011, Retrieved on January 16, 2015, from. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2011/11/21/altmetrics-twitter/.
291. Priem J. Beyond the paper. Nature 2013, 495.
292. Priem J. Altmetrics. Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact 2014, MIT Press. B. Cronin, C.R. Sugimoto (Eds.).
293. Priem J., Costello K.L. How and why scholars cite on Twitter 2010.
294. Priem J., Costello K., Dzuba T. Prevalence and use of Twitter among scholars 2011, Retrieved on March 31, 2015, from. http://figshare.com/articles/Prevalence:and_use_of_Twitter_among_scholars/104629.
295. Priem J., Hemminger B.M. Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday 2010, 15(7). Retrieved on March 31, 2015, from. http://firstmonday.org/article/viewArticle/2874/2570.
296. Priem, J., Piwowar, H., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv:1203.4745 [cs.DL] Retrieved on January 26, 2015, from . http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4745.
297. Priem J., Taraborelli D., Groth P., Neylon C. Alt-metrics: a manifesto 2010, Retrieved on January 26, 2015, from. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/.
298. Pritchard A. Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics?. Journal of Documentation 1969, 25(4):348-349.
299. Procter R., Williams R., Stewart J., Poschen M., Snee H., Voss A., et al. Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 2010, 368(1926):4039-4056.
300. Pscheida D., Albrecht S., Herbst S., Minet C., Köhler T. Nutzung von Social Media und onlinebasierten Anwendungen in der Wissenschaft. Erste Ergebnisse des Science 2.0-Survey 2013 des Leibniz-Forschungsverbunds "Science 2.0" 2014, Available:, Accessed 07.04.14. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:14-qucosa-132962.
301. Rains S.A., Keating D.M. Health blogging: An examination of the outcomes associated with making public, written disclosures about health. Communication Research 2015, 42(1):107-133.
302. Raju N.V. How does UGC identify predatory journals?. Current Science 2013, 104(11):1461-1462.
303. Rathemacher A.J. Altmetrics: Help your researchers measure their full impact. Serials Review 2014, 40(1):60-64. Retrieved on January 26, 2015, from. 10.1080/00987913.2014.897177.
304. REF Assessment framework and guidance on submissions 2011, Retrieved on February 2, 2015, from. http://www.ref.ac.uk/pubs/2011-02/.
305. Reich E.S. Online reputations: Best face forward. Nature 2011, 473:138-139.
306. Robinson-García N., Torres-Salinas D., Zahedi Z., Costas R. New data, new possibilities: Exploring the insides of altmetric.com. El Profesional de la Información 2014, 23(4). arXiv:1408.0135 [cs.DL]. Retrieved on January 29, 2015, from. http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.0135.
307. Rodgers E.P., Barbrow S. A look at altmetrics and its growing significance to research libraries 2013, The University of Michigan University Library, Retrieved on January 26, 2015, from. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/99709.
308. Roemer R.C., Borchardt R. Institutional altmetrics and academic libraries. Information Standards Quarterly 2013, 25(2).
309. Ross C., Terras M., Warwick C., Welsh A. Enabled backchannel: Conference Twitter use by digital humanists. Journal of Documentation 2011, 67(2):214-237.
310. Rousseau R. Daily time series of common single word searches in AltaVista and NorthernLight. Cybermetrics 1999, 2/3(1). paper 2.
311. Rousseau R., Ye Y. A multi-metric approach for research evaluation. Chinese Science Bulletin 2013, 58:3288-3290.
312. Rowlands I., Nicholas D. New journal publishing models: The 2005 CIBER survey of journal author behavior and attitudes. Aslib Proceedings 2005, 57(6):481-497.
313. Rowlands I., Nicholas D. The missing link: Journal usage metrics. Aslib Proceedings 2007, 59(3):222-228.
314. Rowlands I., Nicholas D., Russell B., Canty N., Watkinson A. Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing 2011, 24(3):183-195.
315. Ryan T., Xenos S. Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Computers in Human Behavior 2011, 27(5):1658-1664.
316. Samoilenko A., Yasseri T. The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: A quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics. EPJ Data Science 2014, 3(1). Retrieved on January 13, 2015, from. http://www.epjdatascience.com/content/pdf/epjds20.pdf.
317. Scanfeld D., Scanfeld V., Larson E.L. Dissemination of health information through social networks: Twitter and antibiotics. American Journal of Infection Control 2010, 38(3):182-188.
318. Schlögl C., Gorraiz J., Gumpenberger C., Jack K., Kraker P. Comparison of downloads, citations and readership data for two information systems journals. Scientometrics 2014, 101:1113-1128.
319. Schmoch U. The informative value of international university rankings-Some methodological remarks. Incentives and performance 2015, Springer. I.M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, M. Osterloh (Eds.).
320. Schreiber M. Do we need the g-index?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64(11):2396-2399.
321. Schubert A., Glänzel W. Mean response time. A new indicator of journal citation speed with application to physics journals. Czechoslovakian Journal of Physics 1986, B 36:121-125.
322. Seeber M., Lepori B., Lomi A., Aguillo I., Barberio V. Factors affecting web links between European higher education institutions. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6(3):435-447.
323. Seglen P.O. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997, 314.
324. Serenko A., Dohan M. Comparing the expert survey and citation impact journal ranking methods: Example from the field of artificial intelligence. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5(4):629-648.
325. 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(5):1018-1027.
326. Shema H., Bar-Ilan J., Thelwall M. Scholarly blogs are a promising altmetric source. Research Trends 2014, (37):11-13.
327. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (in press). How is research blogged? A content analysis approach. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi:10.1002/asi.23239.
328. Shepherd P. Altmetrics, PIRUS and usage factor. Insights 2013, 26(3). Retrieved on April 2, 2015, from. http://insights.uksg.org/rt/printerFriendly/2048-7754.108/322.
329. Shuai X., Jiang Z., Liu X., Bollen J. A comparative study of academic and Wikipedia ranking 2013, 25-28. ACM, New York.
330. Shuai, X., Pepe, A., & Bollen, J. (2012). How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citations. arXiv:1202.2461 [cs.SI]. Retrieved on July 7, 2012, from, . http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.2461.
331. Signorini A., Segre A.M., Polgreen P.M. The use of Twitter to track levels of disease activity and public concern in the U.S. during the influenza A H1N1 pandemic. PLoS One 2011, 6(5):e19467.
332. Silverwood-Cope S. Wikipedia: Page one of Google UK for 99% of searches. Intelligent Positioning 2012, Retrieved July 8, 2013, from. http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/2012/02/wikipedia-page-one-of-google-uk-for-99-of-searches/.
333. Small H. Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1973, 24:265-269.
334. Small H. On the shoulders of Robert Merton: Towards a normative theory of citation. Scientometrics 2004, 60(1):71-79.
335. Smith L.C. Citation analysis. Library Trends 1981, 30:83-106. Retrieved March 11, 2015, from. http://www.ideals.uiuc.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/7189/librarytrendsv30i1_opt.pdf?sequence=3#page=88.
336. Smith D.R. Impact factors, scientometrics and the history of citation-based research. Scientometrics 2012, 92(2):419-427.
337. Smith A., Thelwall M. Web impact factors for Australasian universities. Scientometrics 2002, 54(3):363-380.
338. Stieglitz S., Dang-Xuan L. Social media and political communication: A social media analytics framework. Social Network Analysis and Mining 2013, 3(4):1277-1291.
339. Stieglitz S., Dang-Xuan L., Bruns A., Neuberger C. Social media analytics: An interdisciplinary approach and its implications for information systems. Business & Information Systems Engineering 2014, 2. 10.1007/s12599-014-0315-7.
340. Stuart D., Thelwall M. What can university-to-government web links reveal about university-government collaborations?. Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the international society of scientometrics and informetrics 2005, Vol. 1:188-192. Karolinska University Press, Stockholm, Sweden. P. Ingwersen, B. Larsen (Eds.).
341. Sud P., Thelwall M. Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics 2014, 98:1131-1143.
342. Sugimoto C.R., Thelwall M., Larivière V., Tsou A., Mongeon P., Macaluso B. Scientists popularizing science: Characteristics and impact of TED talk presenters. PLoS One 2013, 8(4):e62403.
343. Suh B., Hong L., Pirolli P., Chi E.H. Want to be retweeted? Large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in the Twitter network 2010, 177-184. Retrieved on January 20, 2015, from. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5590452&tag=1.
344. Sutton S.H. Altmetrics: What good are they to academic libraries?. Kansas Library Association College and University Libraries Section Proceedings 2014, 4(2). Retrieved on January 26, 2015, from. 10.4148/2160-942X.1041.
345. Sysomos. (2010). Replies and retweets on Twitter. A Report by Sysomos. Retrieved on January 20, 2015, from . http://www.sysomos.com/insidetwitter/engagement/.
346. Tague-Sutcliffe J. An introduction to informetrics. Information Processing and Management 1992, 28(1):1-3.
347. Takahashi T., Abe S., Igata N. Can Twitter be an alternative of real-world sensors?. Human-Computer Interaction, Part III, HCII 2011, LNCS 6763 2011, 240-249. J.A. Jacko (Ed.).
348. Takhteyev Y., Gruzd A., Wellman B. Geography of Twitter networks. Social Networks 2011, 34(1):73-81.
349. Tang R., Thelwall M. U.S. academic departmental Web-site interlinking in the United States Disciplinary differences. Library & Information Science Research 2003, 25:437-458.
350. Tang R., Thelwall M. Patterns of national and international Web inlinks to US academic departments: An analysis of disciplinary variations. Scientometrics 2004, 60(3):475-485.
351. Taylor M. The challenges of measuring social impact using altmetrics. Research Trends 2013, (33). June 2013. Retrieved on April 2, 2015, from. http://www.researchtrends.com/issue-33-june-2013/the-challenges-of-measuring-social-impact-using-altmetrics/.
352. Taylor M., Plume A. Party papers or policy discussions: An examination of highly shared papers using altmetric data. Research Trends 2014, (36):17-20.
353. Tepper A. How much data is created every minute?. Mashable 2012, Retrieved on March 30, 2015, from. http://mashable.com/2012/06/22/data-created-every-minute/.
354. Thelwall M. The responsiveness of search engine indexes. Cybermetrics 2001, 5(1). paper 1.
355. Thelwall M. Conceptualizing documentation on the Web: An evaluation of different heuristic-based models for counting links between university Web sites. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2002, 53(12):995-1005.
356. Thelwall M. Web use and peer interconnectivity metrics for academic Web sites. Journal of Information Science 2003, 29(1):1-10.
357. Thelwall M. Link analysis: An information science approach 2004, Academic Press, San Diego.
358. Thelwall M. Interpreting social science link analysis research: A theoretical framework. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2006, 57(1):60-68.
359. Thelwall M. Bibliometrics to webometrics. Journal of Information Science 2008, 34(4):605-621.
360. Thelwall M. Social network sites: Users and uses. Advances in computers 2009, Vol. 76:19-73. Elsevier, Amsterdam. M. Zelkowitz (Ed.).
361. Thelwall M. A history of webometrics. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012, August/September, 2012.
362. Thelwall M. Journal impact evaluation: A webometrics perspective. Scientometrics 2012, 92:429-441.
363. Thelwall M. A brief history of altmetrics. Research Trends 2014, (37):3-5.
364. Thelwall M., Buckley K., Paltoglou G. Sentiment in Twitter events. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2011, 62(2):406-418.
365. Thelwall M., Buckley K., Paltoglou G. Sentiment strength detection for the social web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012, 63(1):163-173.
366. Thelwall M., Harries G. Do the Web sites of higher rated scholars have significantly more online impact?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2003, 55(2).
367. Thelwall M., Harries G., Wilkinson D. Why do web sites from different academic subjects interlink?. Journal of Information Science 2003, 29(6):453-471.
368. Thelwall M., Haustein S., Larivière V., Sugimoto C. Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other candidates. PLoS One 2013, 8(5):e64841.
369. Thelwall M., Kousha K. 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 2008, 59(5):805-815.
370. Thelwall M., Kousha K. Academia.edu: Social network or academic network?. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65(4):721-731.
371. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (in press). ResearchGate: disseminating, communicating and measuring scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi:10.1002/asi.23236.
372. Thelwall M., Prabowo R. Identifying and characterising public science-related fears from RSS feeds. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2007, 58(3):379-390.
373. Thelwall M., Price L. Disciplinary differences in academic web presence: A statistical study of the UK. Libri 2003, 53:242-253.
374. Thelwall M., Smith A. Interlinking between Asia-Pacific University Web sites. Scientometrics 2002, 55(3):363-376.
375. Thelwall M., Tang R. Disciplinary and linguistic considerations for academic Web linking: An exploratory hyperlink mediated study with Mainland China and Taiwan. Scientometrics 2003, 58(1):155-181.
376. Thelwall M., Tsou A., Weingart S., Holmberg K., Haustein S. Tweeting links to academic articles. Cybermetrics 2013, 17(1). Retrieved on February 3, 2015, from. http://cybermetrics.cindoc.csic.es/articles/v17i1p1.html.
377. Thelwall M., Vaughan L., Cothey V., Li X., Smith A.G. Which academic subjects have most online impact? A pilot study and a new classification process. Online Information Review 2003, 27(5):333-343.
378. Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (in press). Mendeley readership Altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
379. Thelwall M., Wouters P. What's the deal with the web/blogs/the next big technology: A key role for information science in e-social science research?. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2005, 3507:187-199.
380. Thomas O., Willett P. Webometric analysis of departments of librarianship and information science. Journal of Information Science 2000, 26(6):421-428.
381. Torres D., Cabezas Á., Jiménez E. Altmetrics: New indicators for scientific communication in web 2.0. Comunicar 2013, 21(41):53-60.
382. Torres-Salinas D., Cabezas-Clavijo Á., Ruiz-Pérez R., López-Cózar E.D. State of the library and information science blogosphere after social networks boom: A metric approach. Library & Information Science Research 2011, 33(2):168-174.
383. Torres-Salinas, D., Martín-Martín, A., & Fuente-Gutiérrrez, E. (2014). An introduction to the coverage of the Data Citation index (Thomson-Reuters): Disciplines, document types and repositories. arXiv:1306.6584 [cs.DL]. Retrieved on January 27, 2015, from, . http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6584.
384. Van Dalen H.P., Henkens K. Signals in science: On the importance of signaling in gaining attention in science. Scientometrics 2005, 64(2):209-233.
385. Van Deursen A.J.A.M., van Dijk J.A.G.M. The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society 2014, 16(3):507-526.
386. Van Mierlo T. The 1% rule in four digital health social networks: An observational study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2014, 16(2):e33.
387. Van Noorden R. Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers. Nature News 2014, February 24, 2014. Retrieved on March 29, 2015, from. http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763.
388. Van Noorden R. Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature 2014, 512:126-129.
389. Van Raan A.E.J. Sleeping beauties of science. Scientometrics 2004, 59(3):467-472.
390. Vanclay J.K. Impact factor: Outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?. Scientometrics 2012, 92:211-238.
391. Vaughan L. Exploring website features for business information. Scientometrics 2004, 61(3):467-477.
392. Vaughan L., Hysen K. Relationship between links to journal websites and impact factors. ASLIB Proceedings 2002, 54(6):356-361.
393. Vaughan L., Romero-Frías E. Web search volume as a predictor of academic fame: An exploration of Google Trends. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65(4):707-720.
394. Vaughan L., Shaw D. Web citation data for impact assessment: A comparison of four science disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2005, 56(10):1075-1087.
395. Vaughan L., Thelwall M. Scholarly use of the web: What are the key inducers of links to journal web sites?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2003, 54(1):29-38.
396. Vaughan L., Wu G. Links to commercial websites as a source of business information. Scientometrics 2004, 60(3):487-496.
397. Vaughan L., You J. Mapping business competitive positions using Web co-link analysis 2005, 534-543. P. Ingwersen, B. Larsen (Eds.).
398. Vaughan L., You J. Comparing business competition positions based on Web co-link data: The global market vs. the Chinese market. Scientometrics 2006, 68(3):611-628.
399. Verstak, A., Acharya, A., Suzuki, H., Henderson, S., Iakhiaev, M., Lin, C. C. Y., et al. (2014). On the shoulders of giants: the growing impact of older articles. arXiv:1411.0275 [cs.DL]. Retrieved on December 29, 2014, from, . http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.0275.
400. Vertesi J. Tweeting spacecraft: Communicating space science in the age of Web 2.0. Communication Astronomy with the Public Journal 2010, 10:30-33. Retrieved on April 2, 2015, from. http://www.capjournal.org/issues/10/10_30.pdf.
401. Vieira E.S., Cabral J.A.S., Gomes J.A.N.F. Definition of a model based on bibliometric indicators for assessing applicants to academic positions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65(3):560-577.
402. Vieira E.S., Gomes J.A.N.F. A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university. Scientometrics 2009, 81(2):587-600.
403. Wagner C.S., Leydesdorff L. Network structure, self-organization and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy 2005, 34(10):1608-1618.
404. Waltman L. An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6(4):700-711.
405. Waltman L., Costas R. F1000 recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation: A comparison with citations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65(3):433-445.
406. Waltman L., Schreiber M. On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64(2):372-379.
407. Wasserman S., Faust K. Social network analysis: Methods and applications 1994, Cambridge University Press.
408. Watson A.B. Comparing citations and downloads for individual articles. Journal of Vision 2009, 9(4). Retrieved on March 31, 2015, from. http://www.journalofvision.org/content/9/4/i.
409. Weller M. The digital scholar. How technology is transforming scholarly practice 2011, Bloomsbury Academic, UK.
410. Weller K., Dröge E., Puschmann C. Citation analysis in Twitter: Approaches for defining and measuring information flows within tweets during scientific conferences. CEUR workshop proceedings 2011, Vol. 718:1-12. Retrieved January 17, 2013 from. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-718/paper_04.pdf.
411. Weller K., Puschmann C. Twitter for scientific communication: How can citations/references be identified and measured? 2011, Retrieved January 17, 2013, from. http://journal.webscience.org/500/1/153_paper.pdf.
412. Westney L.C.H. Historical rankings of science and technology: A citationist perspective. The Journal of the Association for History and Computing 1998, 1(1).
413. Wilkinson D., Harries G., Thelwall M., Price E. Motivations for academic web site interlinking: Evidence for the web as a novel source of information on informal scholarly communication. Journal of Information Science 2003, 29(1):59-66.
414. Wilkinson D., Thelwall M. Researching personal information on the public Web: Methods and ethics. Social Science Computer Review 2011, 29(4):387-401.
415. Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control-Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Netherlands. SURFfoundation report. Retrieved on January 18, 2015, from, . http://www.surf.nl/binaries/content/assets/surf/en/knowledgebase/2011/Users+narcissism+and+control.pdf.
416. Xiong F., Liu Y., Zhang Z.J., Zhu J., Zhang Y. An information diffusion model based on retweeting mechanism for online social media. Physics Letters A 2012, 376(30-31):2103-2108.
417. Ynalvez M., Duque R.B., Mbatia P., Sooryamoorthy R., Palackal A., Shrum W. When do scientists "adopt" the Internet? Dimensions of connectivity in developing areas. Scientometrics 2005, 63(1):39-67.
418. Zahedi Z., Costas R., Wouters P. How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of "alternative metrics" in scientific publications. Scientometrics 2014, 101:1491-1513.
419. Zahedi Z., Fenner M., Costas R. How consistent are altmetrics providers? Study of 1000 PLoS ONE publications using the PLOS ALM, Mendeley and Altmetric.com APIs 2014, Retrieved on January 29, 2015, from. http://altmetrics.org/altmetrics14/.
420. Zhao D., Rosson M.B. How and why people Twitter: The role that micro-blogging plays in informal communication at work 2009, 243-252. Retrieved on January 21, 2015, from. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1531710.
421. Zhao D., Strotmann A. The knowledge base and research front of information science 2006-2010: An author cocitation and bibliographic coupling analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65(5):995-1006.
422. Zipf G.K. Human behavior and the principle of least effort 1949, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, p. 1.