Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 68, Issue 9, 2017, Pages 2037-2062

  Sugimoto, Cassidy R ^a   Work, Sam ^b   Larivière, Vincent ^b,c   Haustein, Stefanie ^b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CRITICAL DISCUSSIONS; DATA COLLECTION; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION; SOCIAL MEDIA; SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS; STATE OF THE ART; VARIOUS FUNCTIONS;

SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

EMPIRICISM; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; SOCIAL MEDIA;

EID: 85021243688     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23833     Document Type: Review

References (372)

1. Acord, S.K., & Harley, D. (2012). Credit, time, and personality: The human challenges to sharing scholarly work using Web 2.0. New Media & Society, 15, 379–397. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812465140
2. Adie, E. (2009, February 11). Commenting on scientific articles (PLoS edition) [Nature.com Blog]. Retrieved from http://blogs.nature.com/nascent/2009/02/commenting_on_scientific_artic.html
3. Adie, E. (2014). Taking the alternative mainstream. El Profesional de La Información, 23, 349–351.
4. Adie, E., & Roe, W. (2013). Altmetric: Enriching scholarly content with article-level discussion and metrics. Learned Publishing, 26, 11–17. http://doi.org/10.1087/20130103
5. Aibar, E., Lerga, M., Lladós, J., Meseguer, A., & Minguillon, J. (2013). An empirical study on faculty perceptions and teaching practices of wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on e-Learning (pp. 258–265). Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VaATBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA258&dq=%22paper+is+structured+as+follows:+Section+2+describes+previous+ studies+involving+the+use%22+%22learning+processes,+both+inside+ and+outside+academia.+In+the+university+context,+in+fact,+is+ one+of%22+&ots=T825XGYFNG&sig=g8M1uPMsADbu43G_ bbAkDr7XjfQ
6. Alaimo, C., & Kallinikos, J. (2016). Encoding the everyday: Social media and its media apparatus. In C.R. Sugimoto, H. Ekbia, & M. Mattioli (Eds.), Big data is not a monolith: Policies, practices, and problems. (pp. 77–90). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Alhoori, H., & Furuta, R. (2014). Do altmetrics follow the crowd or does the crowd follow altmetrics? In Digital Libraries (JCDL), 2014 IEEE/ACM Joint Conference on (pp. 375–378). IEEE. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6970193
8. Allen, H.G., Stanton, T.R., Di Pietro, F., & Moseley, G.L. (2013). Social media release increases dissemination of original articles in the clinical pain sciences. PLoS One, 8, e68914–e68914. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068914
9. Allen, L., Jones, C., Dolby, K., Lynn, D., & Walport, M. (2009). Looking for landmarks: The role of expert review and bibliometric analysis in evaluating scientific publication outputs. PLoS One, 4, e5910. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005910
10. Alperin, J.P. (2013). Ask not what altmetrics can do for you, but what altmetrics can do for developing countries. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39, 18–21.
11. Alperin, J.P. (2014). Exploring altmetrics in an emerging country context. In Altmetrics14: Expanding Impacts and Metrics, Workshop at Web Science Conference 2014. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1041797
12. Alperin, J.P. (2015). Geographic variation in social media metrics: An analysis of latin American journal articles. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67, 289–304. http://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0176
13. Alternative metrics. (2012). Nature Materials, 11, 907. https://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v11/n11/full/nmat3485.html
14. Amir, M., Sampson, B.P., Endly, D., Tamai, J.M., Henley, J., Brewer, A.C., … Dellavalle, R.P. (2014). Social networking sites: Emerging and essential tools for communication in dermatology. JAMA Dermatology, 150, 56–60. http://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.6340
15. Andersen, J.P., & Haustein, S. (2015). Influence of study type on Twitter activity for medical research papers. In Proceedings of the 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference (pp. 26–36). Istanbul, Turkey. Retrieved from http://www.issi2015.org/files/downloads/all-papers/0026.pdf
16. Anonymous. (2005). Revolutionizing peer review? Nature Neuroscience, 8, 397. http://doi.org/doi:10.1038/nn0405-397
17. Anonymous. (2006). Overview: Nature's trial of open peer review. Nature. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature05535
18. Archambault, P.M., van de Belt, T.H., Grajales, F.J., III, Faber, M.J., Kuziemsky, C.E., Gagnon, S., … Légaré, F. (2013). Wikis and collaborative writing applications in health care: A scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15, e210. http://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2787
19. Arcila-Calderón, C., Piñuel-Raigada, J.L., & Calderín-Cruz, M. (2013). The e-research on media & communications: Attitudes, tools and practices in latin America researchers. Comunicar, 20, 111–118. http://doi.org/10.3916/C40-2013-03-01
20. Arnold, N., & Paulus, T. (2010). Using a social networking site for experiential learning: Appropriating, lurking, modeling and community building. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 188–196. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.04.002
21. Bar-Ilan, J. (2012). asi 2001–2010. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 38, 24–28.
22. Bar-Ilan, J. (2013). Astrophysics publications on arXiv, Scopus and Mendeley: A case study. Scientometrics, 100, 217–225. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1215-1
23. Bar-Ilan, J. (2014). asi@ Mendeley revisited. In Altmetrics14: Expanding Impacts And Metrics, Workshop at Web Science Conference 2014. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1031681
24. Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars' visibility on the social Web. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators Montreal Canada 58 Sept 2012 (Vol. 52900, pp. 98–109). Montreal. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5611
25. Barthel, S., Tönnies, S., Köhncke, B., Siehndel, P., & Balke, W.T. (2015). What does twitter measure? Influence of diverse user groups in altmetrics. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM/IEEE-CE on Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 119–128). Knoxville, Tennessee, USA: ACM Press. http://doi.org/10.1145/2756406.2756913
26. Begel, A., Bosch, J., & Storey, M.A. (2013). Social networking meets software development: Perspectives from GitHub, MSDN, stack exchange, and topcoder. IEEE Software, 30, 52–66. http://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2013.13
27. Bender, J.L., O'grady, L.A., Deshpande, A., Cortinois, A.A., Saffie, L., Husereau, D., & Jadad, A.R. (2011). Collaborative authoring: A case study of the use of a wiki as a tool to keep systematic reviews up to date. Open Medicine, 5, e201.
28. Bennett-Smith, M. (2013, June 4). Geoffrey Miller, Visiting NYU Professor, Slammed For Fat-Shaming Obese PhD Applicants. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/geoffrey-miller-fat-shaming-nyu-phd_n_3385641.html
29. Berrett, D. (2010, February 26). ESU professor suspended for comments made on Facebook page. Pocono Record. East Stroudsburg. Retrieved from http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100226/NEWS/2260344
30. Binfield, P. (2013). PeerJ - A case study in improving research collaboration at the journal level. Information Services and Use, 33, 251–255. http://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-130714
31. Birkholz, J.M., Seeber, M., & Holmberg, K. (2015). Drivers of higher education institutions' visibility: A study of UK HEIs social media use vs. organizational characteristics. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 502–513). Istanbul, Turkey. Retrieved from http://www.issi2015.org/files/downloads/all-papers/0502.pdf
32. Black, E.W. (2008). Wikipedia and academic peer review: Wikipedia as a recognised medium for scholarly publication? Online Information Review, 32, 73–88. http://doi.org/10.1108/14684520810865994
33. Boateng, F., & Quan Liu, Y. (2014). Web 2.0 applications' usage and trends in top US academic libraries. Library Hi Tech, 32, 120–138. http://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-07-2013-0093
34. Bonetta, L. (2007). Scientists enter the blogosphere. Cell, 129, 443–445. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2007.04.032
35. Bonetta, L. (2009). Should you be tweeting? Cell, 139, 452–453. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2009.10.017
36. Bornmann, L. (2014a). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 8, 895–903. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.005
37. Bornmann, L. (2014b). Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime. Journal of Informetrics, 8, 935–950. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.007
38. Bornmann, L. (2015). Usefulness of altmetrics for measuring the broader impact of research: A case study using data from PLOS and F1000Prime. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67, 305–319. http://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-09-2014-0115
39. Bornmann, L. (2016). Scientific revolution in scientometrics: The broadening of impact from citation to societal. In C.R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication (pp. 347–359). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
40. Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 286–291. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.003
41. Borrego, A., & Fry, J. (2012). Measuring researchers' use of scholarly information through social bookmarking data: A case study of BibSonomy. Journal of Information Science, 38, 297–308. http://doi.org/10.1177/0165551512438353
42. Bould, M.D., Hladkowicz, E.S., Pigford, A.A.E., Ufholz, L.A., Postonogova, T., Shin, E., & Boet, S. (2014). References that anyone can edit: Review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature. BMJ, 348, g1585–g1585. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1585
43. Bowman, T.D. (2015, July). Investigating the use of affordances and framing techniques by scholars to manage personal and professional impressions on Twitter (Dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA. Retrieved from http://www.tdbowman.com/pdf/2015_07_TDBowman_Dissertation.pdf
44. boyd, d., & Ellison, N.B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
45. Brigham, T.J. (2014). An introduction to altmetrics. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 33, 438–447. http://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2014.957093
46. British Library, Higher Education Funding Councils. Joint Information Systems Committee, Education for Change, The Research Partnership. (2012). Researchers of Tomorrow, 2009-2011. [data collection]. UK Data Service. SN: 7029, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-7029-1
47. Brown, A., & Green, T. (2010). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Growth and maturation of web-based tools in a challenging climate; Social networks gain educators' attention. In M. Orey, S.A. Jones, & R.M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 35, pp. 29–43). Boston, MA: Springer US. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4419-1516-0_3
48. Butler, D. (2008). Publish in Wikipedia or perish. Nature. http://doi.org/10.1038/news.2008.1312
49. Callaway, E. (2010). No rest for the bio-wikis. Nature, 468, 359–360. http://doi.org/10.1038/468359a
50. Capano, N., Deris, J., & Desjardins, E. (2009). Social networking usage and grades among college students. Whittemore School of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire. Retrieved from http://www.unh.edu/news/docs/UNHsocialmedia.pdf
51. Caron, P.L. (2006). Are scholars better bloggers?-Bloggership: How blogs are transforming legal scholarship. Washington University Law Review, 84, 1025.
52. Carpenter, J., Wetheridge, L., Tanner, S., & Smith, N. (2012). Researchers of Tomorrow. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2012/researchers-of-tomorrow
53. Chakraborty, N. (2012). Activities and reasons for using social networking sites by research scholars in NEHU: A study on facebook and researchgate. Retrieved from http://ir.inflibnet.ac.in:8080/dxml/handle/1944/1666
54. Chamberlain, S. (2013). Consuming article-level metrics: Observations and lessons. Information Standards Quarterly, 25, 4. http://doi.org/10.3789/isqv25no2.2013.02
55. Chaudhry, B.A., Glode, L.M., Gillman, M., & Miller, R.S. (2012). Trends in twitter use by physicians at the American society of clinical oncology annual meeting, 2010 and 2011. Journal of Oncology Practice, 8, 173–178. http://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2011.000483
56. Chen, K., Tang, M., Wang, C., & Hsiang, J. (2015). Exploring alternative metrics of scholarly performance in the social sciences and humanities in Taiwan. Scientometrics, 102, 97–112. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1420-6
57. Chesney, T. (2006). An empirical examination of Wikipedia's credibility. First Monday, 11. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/1413
58. Cheverie, J.F., Boettcher, J., & Buschman, J. (2009). Digital scholarship in the university tenure and promotion process: A Report on the sixth scholarly communication symposium at Georgetown University Library. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 40, 219–230. http://doi.org/10.1353/scp.0.0044
59. Chretien, K.C., Azar, J., & Kind, T. (2011). Physicians on Twitter. JAMA, 305, 566–568. http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.68
60. Cochran, A., Kao, L.S., Gusani, N.J., Suliburk, J.W., & Nwomeh, B.C. (2014). Use of twitter to document the 2013 academic surgical congress. The Journal of Surgical Research, 190, 36–40. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2014.02.029
61. Collins, E., Bulger, M.E., & Meyer, E.T. (2012). Discipline matters: Technology use in the humanities. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 11, 76–92. http://doi.org/10.1177/1474022211427421
62. Collins, E., & Jubb, M. (2012). How do researchers in the humanities use information resources? Liber Quarterly, 21, 176–187.
63. Colson, V. (2011). Science blogs as competing channels for the dissemination of science news. Journalism, 12, 889–902.
64. Costas, R., Meijer, I., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2013). The value of research data: Metrics for datasets from a cultural and technical point of view. A Knowledge Exchange Report. Copenhagen, Denmark: Knowledge Exchange. Retrieved from http://www.knowledge-exchange.info/datametrics
65. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2014). Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66, 2003–2019. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23309
66. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015). The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media: Large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67, 260–288. http://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0173
67. Coverdale, A. (2011). Negotiating doctoral practices and academic identities through the adoption and use of social and participative media. In Proceedings of the European Conference on eLearning 2011 (p. 909). Brighton, UK.
68. Cress, P.E. (2014). Using altmetrics and social media to supplement impact factor: Maximizing your article's academic and societal impact. Aesthetic Surgery Journal/the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 34, 1123–1126. http://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X14542973
69. Cronin, B. (2012, August). The velvet revolution in scholarly communication. Keynote Address presented at the Second International Conference on Integrated Information, Budapest, Hungary.
70. Cronin, B. (2013). Metrics à la mode. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 1091–1091. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22989
71. Cronin, B., Snyder, H.W., Rosenbaum, H., Martinson, A., & Callahan, E. (1998). Invoked on the web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 1319–1328. http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1998)49:14 < 1319::AID-ASI9 > 3.0.CO;2-W
72. Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C.R. (Eds.). (2015). Scholarly metrics under the microscope: From citation analysis to academic auditing. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
73. Crotty, D. (2014). Altmetrics: Finding meaningful needles in the data haystack. Serials Review, 40, 141–146. http://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2014.947839
74. Dabbish, L., Stuart, C., Tsay, J., & Herbsleb, J. (2012). Social coding in GitHub: Transparency and collaboration in an open software repository (p. 1277). NY NY: ACM Press. http://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145396
75. Dahler-Larsen, P. (2011). The evaluation society. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
76. Dantonio, L., Makri, S., & Blandford, A. (2012). Coming across academic social media content serendipitously. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 9, 1–10. http://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504901002
77. Darling, E.S., Shiffman, D., Côté, I., & Drew, J.A. (2013). The role of Twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 32–43. http://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.16v1
78. Das, A.K., & Mishra, S. (2014). Genesis of altmetrics or article-level metrics for measuring efficacy of scholarly communications: Current perspectives. Journal of Scientometric Research, 3, 1–12. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2499467
79. Davies, J., & Merchant, G. (2007). Looking from the inside out: Academic blogging as new literacy. In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacies sampler (pp. 167–197). New York: P. Lang.
80. Davis, M.J., Coppock, E., & Vowell, L. (2012). Science-forums.net a platform for scientific sharing and collaboration. The Grey Journal, 8, 5–13.
81. Day, R.E. (2014). “The Data—It Is Me!” (“Les données—c'est Moi!”). In B. Cronin & C.R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact (pp. 67–84). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
82. Desai, T., Patwardhan, M., & Coore, H. (2014). Factors that contribute to social media influence within an internal medicine twitter learning community. F1000Research, 3, 120. http://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.4283.1
83. Desai, T., Shariff, A., Shariff, A., Kats, M., Fang, X., Christiano, C., & Ferris, M. (2012). Tweeting the meeting: An in-depth analysis of twitter activity at kidney week 2011. PLoS One, 7, 1–9. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040253
84. Dinsmore, A., Allen, L., & Dolby, K. (2014). Alternative perspectives on impact: The potential of ALMs and altmetrics to inform funders about research impact. PLoS Biology, 12, e1002003.
85. Dooley, P.L. (2010). Wikipedia and the two-faced professoriate. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (p. 24). New York, NY: ACM. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1832803
86. Dowling, R., & Wilson, M. (2015). Digital doctorates? An exploratory study of PhD candidates' use of online tools. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54, 1–11. http://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1058720
87. Elsayed, A.M. (2015). The use of academic social networks among arab researchers: A survey. Social Science Computer Review, 34, 378–391, http://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315589146
88. Enis, M. (2013). Figshare debuts repository platform. Library Journal, 138, 21.
89. Evans, P., & Krauthammer, M. (2011). Exploring the use of social media to measure journal article impact. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings 2011 (pp. 374–381). American Medical Informatics Association.
90. Ewins, R. (2005). Who are you? Weblogs and academic identity. E-Learning, 2, 368. http://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2005.2.4.368
91. Eyre-Walker, A., & Stoletzki, N. (2013). The assessment of science: The relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations. PLoS Biology, 11, e1001675. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001675
92. 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, e123–e123. http://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2012
93. Faulkes, Z. (2014). The vacuum shouts back: Postpublication peer review on social media. Neuron, 82, 258–260. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.03.032
94. Fausto, S., Machado, F.A., Bento, L.F.J., Iamarino, A., Nahas, T.R., & Munger, D.S. (2012). Research blogging: Indexing and registering the change in science 2.0. PLoS One, 7, e50109–e50109. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050109
95. Feeny, S., Magee, R., & Wilson, E. (2014). An analysis of Twitter activity of pharmaceutical companies and tweets relating to publication activity. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 30, S9–S23. http://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2014.896156
96. Fenner, M. (2013). What can article-level metrics do for you? PLoS Biology, 11, e1001687–e1001687. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001687
97. Fenner, M. (2014). Altmetrics and other novel measures for scientific impact. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening science (pp. 179–189). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_12
98. Ferguson, C., Inglis, S.C., Newton, P.J., Cripps, P.J.S., Macdonald, P.S., & Davidson, P.M. (2014). Social media: A tool to spread information: A case study analysis of Twitter conversation at the Cardiac Society of Australia & New Zealand 61st Annual Scientific Meeting 2013. Collegian, 21, 89–93. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2014.03.002
99. Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44, 311–326. http://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.44-4-001
100. Forkosh-Baruch, A., & Hershkovitz, A. (2012). A case study of Israeli higher-education institutes sharing scholarly information with the community via social networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 15, 58–68. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.003
101. Friedrich, N., Bowman, T.D., Stock, W.G., & Haustein, S. (2015). Adapting sentiment analysis for tweets linking to scientific papers. In Proceedings of the 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference (pp. 107–108). Istanbul, Turkey.
102. Galligan, F., & Dyas-Correia, S. (2013). Altmetrics: Rethinking the way we measure. Serials Review, 39, 56–61. http://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2013.10765486
103. Galloway, L.M., Pease, J.L., & Rauh, A.E. (2013). Introduction to altmetrics for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) librarians. Science & Technology Libraries, 32, 335–345. http://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2013.829762
104. Gasparyan, A.Y., Gerasimov, A.N., Voronov, A.A., & Kitas, G.D. (2015). Rewarding peer reviewers - Maintaining the integrity of science communication. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 30, 360. http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360
105. Gijón, M.M. (2013). The blogosphere in the spanish literary field. Consequences and challenges to twenty-first century literature. Hispanic Research Journal, 14, 373–384. http://doi.org/10.1179/1468273713Z.00000000055
106. Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438, 900–901.
107. Gillmor, D. (2006). We the media: Grassroots journalism by the people, for the people (Pbk. ed). Beijing; Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly.
108. Good, B.M., Tennis, J.T., & Wilkinson, M.D. (2009). Social tagging in the life sciences: Characterizing a new metadata resource for bioinformatics. BMC Bioinformatics, 10, 313. http://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-313
109. Grande, D., Gollust, S.E., Pany, M., Seymour, J., Goss, A., Kilaru, A., & Meisel, Z. (2014). Translating research for health policy: Researchers' perceptions and use of social media. Health Affairs, 33, 1278–1285. http://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0300
110. Greenwood, G. (2012). Examining the presence of social media on university web sites. Journal of College Admission, 216, 24–28.
111. Grosseck, G., & Holotescu, C. (2011). Academic research in 140 characters or less. In Conference Proceedings of “Elearning and Software for Education” (eLSE) (Vol. 2, pp. 84–94). Bucharest, RO: Universitatea Nationala de Aparare Carol I.
112. Groth, P., & Gurney, T. (2010). Studying scientific discourse on the web using bibliometrics: A chemistry blogging case study. In Proceedings of the WebSci10: Extending the Frontiers of Society On-Line. Raleigh, North Carolina.
113. Gruber, T. (2014). Academic sell-out: How an obsession with metrics and rankings is damaging academia. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 24, 165–177. http://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2014.970248
114. Gruzd, A., & Goertzen, M. (2013). Wired academia: Why social science scholars are using social media (pp. 3332–3341). Presented at the 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii: IEEE. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2013.614
115. Gruzd, A., Staves, K., & Wilk, A. (2012). Connected scholars: Examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2340–2350. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.004
116. Gu, F., & Widén-Wulff, G. (2011). Scholarly communication and possible changes in the context of social media. The Electronic Library, 29, 762–776. http://doi.org/10.1108/02640471111187999
117. Gunn, W. (2013). Social signals reflect academic impact: What it means when a scholar adds a paper to Mendeley. Information Standards Quarterly, 25, 33–39.
118. Gunn, W. (2014). On numbers and freedom. El Profesional de La Informacion, 23, 463–466. http://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2014.sep.02
119. Hadgu, A.T., & Jäschke, R. (2014). Identifying and analyzing researchers on twitter (pp. 23–32). ACM Press. http://doi.org/10.1145/2615569.2615676
120. Halavais, A. (2006). Scholarly blogging: Moving toward the visible college. In A. Bruns & J. Jacobs (Eds.), Uses of blogs (pp. 117–126). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
121. Hall, N. (2014). The Kardashian index: A measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Genome Biology, 15, 424–424. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-014-0424-0
122. Hammarfelt, B. (2014). Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics, 101, 1419–1430. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1261-3
123. Hammond, T., Hannay, T., Lund, B., & Scott, J. (2005). Social bookmarking tools (I). A general review. D-Lib Magazine, 11, 4. Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april05/hammond/04hammond.html
124. Hank, C.F. (2011). Scholars and their blogs: Haracteristics, preferences, and perceptions impacting digital preservation. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Retrieved from http://ils.unc.edu/~wildem/ASIST2011/Hank-diss.pdf
125. Hank, C.F., Tsou, A., Sugimoto, C.R., & Pomerantz, J. (2014). Faculty and student interactions via facebook: Policies, preferences, and practices. It - Information Technology, 56, 216–223. http://doi.org/10.1515/itit-2014-1061
126. Harley, D., Acord, S.K., Earl-Novell, S., Lawrence, S., & King, C.J. (2010). Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: An exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines. Berkeley: The Center for Studies in Higher Education, Univ of California Press. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g
127. Harnad, S. (1991). Post-Gutenberg galaxy: The fourth revolution in the means of production of knowledge. Public-Access Computer Systems Review, 2, 39–53.
128. Haustein, S., Bowman, T.D., & Costas, R. (2015). “Communities of attention” around scientific publications: Who is tweeting about scientific papers? Presented at the Social Media & Society 2015 International Conference, Toronto, Canada.
129. Haustein, S., Bowman, T.D., & Costas, R. (2016). Interpreting “altmetrics”: Viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories. In C.R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication (pp. 372–405). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05701
130. Haustein, S., Bowman, T.D., Holmberg, K., Peters, I., & Larivière, V. (2014). Astrophysicists on Twitter: An in-depth analysis of tweeting and scientific publication behavior. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66, 279–296. http://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-09-2013-0081
131. Haustein, S., Bowman, T.D., Holmberg, K., Tsou, A., Sugimoto, C.R., & Larivière, V. (2016). Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot” accounts on Twitter. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 232–238. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23456
132. Haustein, S., Bowman, T.D., Macaluso, B., Sugimoto, C.R., & Larivière, V. (2014). Measuring Twitter activity of arXiv e-prints and published papers. In Altmetrics14: Expanding Impacts and Metrics, Workshop at Web Science Conference 2014. http://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1041514%20
133. Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS One, 10, e0120495. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120495
134. Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2014). Mendeley as the source of global readership by students and postdocs? Evaluating article usage by academic status. In IATUL Conference, Espoo, Finland, June 2-5 2014. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2033&context=iatul
135. Haustein, S., Larivière, V., Thelwall, M., Amyot, D., & Peters, I. (2014). Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ? It - Information Technology, 56, 207–215. http://doi.org/10.1515/itit-2014-1048
136. Haustein, S., & Peters, I. (2012). Using social bookmarks and tags as alternative indicators of journal content description. First Monday, 17, 1–28. http://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v17i11.4110
137. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2014). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics, 101, 1145–1163. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1221-3
138. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C.R., Thelwall, M., & Larivière, V. (2014). Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 656–669. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23101
139. Haustein, S., & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 446–457. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.04.002
140. Haustein, S., Sugimoto, C.R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Guest editorial: Social media in scholarly communication. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67. http://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-03-2015-0047
141. Hawkins, C.M., Duszak, R., & Rawson, J.V. (2014). Social media in radiology: Early trends in Twitter microblogging at radiology's largest international meeting. Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR, 11, 387–390. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2013.07.015
142. Hayes, T.J., Ruschman, D., & Walker, M.M. (2009). Social networking as an admission tool: A case study in success. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19, 109–124. http://doi.org/10.1080/08841240903423042
143. Hendricks, A. (2010). Bloggership, or is publishing a blog scholarship? A survey of academic librarians. Library Hi Tech, 28, 470–477. http://doi.org/10.1108/07378831011076701
144. Hendrick, S.F. (2012). Beyond the blog. Umeå: Umeå University, Department of Language Studies.
145. Herman, B. (2014, September 5). Steven Salaita twitter scandal: University offers settlement, but free speech questions Linger. International Business Times. Retrieved from http://www.ibtimes.com/steven-salaita-twitter-scandal-university-offers-settlement-free-speech-questions-linger-1678854
146. Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2011). Decisions on assessing research impact. Research Excellent Framework (REF) 2014 (Research Excellence Framework No. 01.2011). Retrieved from http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/decisionsonassessingresearchimpact/01_11.pdf
147. Hodis, E., Prilusky, J., Martz, E., Silman, I., Moult, J., & Sussman, J.L. (2008). Proteopedia-a scientific'wiki'bridging the rift between three-dimensional structure and function of biomacromolecules. Genome Biology, 9, R121. http://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2008-9-8-r121
148. Hoffmann, C.P., Lutz, C., & Meckel, M. (2015). A relational altmetric? Network centrality on ResearchGate as an indicator of scientific impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 765–775. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23423
149. Holmberg, K. (2015). Altmetrics for information professionals past, present and future. Waltman, MA: Chandos Pub.
150. Holmberg, K., Bowman, T.D., Haustein, S., & Peters, I. (2014). Astrophysicists' conversational connections on twitter. PLoS One, 9, e106086–e106086. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106086
151. Holmberg, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics, 101, 1027–1042. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1229-3
152. Hope, K. (2015, July 29). Facebook now used by half of world's online users. BBC. New York. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33712729
153. Htoo, T.H.H., & Na, J.C. (2015). Comparison of altmetrics across multiple disciplines: Psychology, history, and linguistics. Fourth International Conference of Asian Special Libraries (ICoASL 2015). Retrieved from http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/library_research/50/
154. Hull, D., Pettifer, S.R., & Kell, D.B. (2008). Defrosting the Digital Library: Bibliographic tools for the next generation web. PLoS Computational Biology, 4, e1000204. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000204
155. Ingeno, L. (2013, June 4). Fat-Shaming in Academe. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/06/04/outrage-over-professors-twitter-post-obese-students
156. Ingwersen, P., & Chavan, V. (2011). Indicators for the data usage index (DUI): An incentive for publishing primary biodiversity data through global information infrastructure. BMC Bioinformatics, 12, S3. http://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-S15-S3
157. Jalali, A., & Wood, T. (2013). Analyzing online impact of canadian conference of medical education through tweets. Education in Medicine Journal, 5, e110–e111. http://doi.org/10.5959/eimj.v5i3.162
158. Jeng, W., He, D., & Jiang, J. (2015). User participation in an academic social networking service: A survey of open group users on Mendeley: User participation in an academic social networking service. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 890–904. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23225
159. Jeng, W., He, D., Jiang, J., & Zhang, Y. (2012). Groups in Mendeley: Owners' descriptions and group outcomes. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 49, 1–4.
160. Jobmann, A., Hoffmann, C.P., Künne, S., Peters, I., Schmitz, J., & Wollnik-Korn, G. (2014). Altmetrics for large, multidisciplinary research groups: Comparison of current tools. Bibliometrie-Praxis Und Forschung, 3, 12–1. Retrieved from http://www.bibliometrie-pf.de/index.php/bibliometrie/article/view/205
161. Jordan, K. (2014). Academics and their online networks: Exploring the role of academic social networking sites. First Monday, 19. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i11.4937
162. Kabilan, M.K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M.J.Z. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 179–187. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.07.003
163. Kadriu, A. (2013). Discovering value in academic social networks: A case study in ResearchGate. In Information Technology Interfaces (ITI), Proceedings of the ITI 2013 35th International Conference on (pp. 57–62). IEEE. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6648997
164. Kalashyan, I., Kaneva, D., Lee, S., Knapp, D., Roushan, G., & Bobeva, M. (2013). Paradigm shift-engaging academics in social media-the case of Bournemouth university. In Proceedings of the European Conference on e-Learning, 2013 (pp. 662–665). Sophia Antipolis, France.
165. Kamel Boulos, M.N., & Anderson, P.F. (2012). Preliminary survey of leading general medicine journals' use of Facebook and Twitter. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 33, 38–47.
166. Kaplan, A.M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53, 59–68. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
167. Kelly, B., & Delasalle, J. (2012). Can LinkedIn and Academia. edu enhance access to open repositories? In OR2012: The Seventh International Conference on Open Repositories. Edinburgh, Scotland: University of Bath. Retrieved from http://opus.bath.ac.uk/30227
168. Kirkup, G. (2010). Academic blogging: Academic practice and academic identity. London Review of Education, 8, 75–84. http://doi.org/10.1080/14748460903557803
169. Kjellberg, S. (2010). I am a blogging researcher: Motivations for blogging in a scholarly context. First Monday, 15, Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2962
170. Klein, M., Niebuhr, V., & D'alessandro, D. (2013). Innovative online faculty development utilizing the power of social media. Academic Pediatrics, 13, 564–569. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2013.07.005
171. Knight, S.R. (2014). Social media and online attention as an early measure of the impact of research in solid organ transplantation. Transplantation, 98, 490–496. http://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000000307
172. Konkiel, S. (2013). Tracking citations and altmetrics for research data: Challenges and opportunities. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39, 27–32.
173. Konkiel, S., & Scherer, D. (2013). New opportunities for repositories in the age of altmetrics. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39, 22–26.
174. Kortelainen, T., & Katvala, M. (2012). “Everything is plentiful—Except attention”. Attention data of scientific journals on social web tools. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 661–668. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.06.004
175. Kottke, J. (2005, October 19). Tumblelogs. Retrieved from http://kottke.org/05/10/tumblelogs
176. Kouper, I. (2010). Science blogs and public engagement with science: Practices, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Science Communication, 9, 1–10.
177. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books?: Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 566–581. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23404
178. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Abdoli, M. (2012). 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, 63, 1710–1727. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22717
179. Kovic, I., Lulic, I., & Brumini, G. (2008). Examining the medical blogosphere: An online survey of medical bloggers. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 10, e28–e28. http://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1118
180. Kubilius, J. (2014). Sharing code. I-Perception, 5, 75–78. http://doi.org/10.1068/i004ir
181. Kwok, R. (2012). Altmetrics make their mark. Nature, 500, 491–493. http://doi.org/10.1038/nj7463-491a
182. Lamdan, S.S. (2015). Social media privacy: A rallying cry to librarians. The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 85, 261–277. http://doi.org/10.1086/681610
183. 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. College & Research Libraries News, 74, 292–300.
184. Larivière, V., Ni, C.C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C.R. (2013). Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504, 211–213.
185. Lee, C.J., Sugimoto, C.R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 2–17. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784
186. Lenhart, A., & Fox, S. (2006). Bloggers: A portrait of the internet's new story tellers. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/Bloggers.aspx
187. Letierce, J., Passant, A., Breslin, J., & Decker, S. (2010). Understanding how Twitter is used to spread scientific messages. Retrieved from http://journal.webscience.org/314/
188. Leung, E.Y.L., Siassakos, D., & Khan, K.S. (2015). Journal club via social media: Authors take note of the impact of #BlueJC. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 122, 1042–1044. http://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13440
189. Liang, H., & Fu, K. (2015). Testing propositions derived from twitter studies: Generalization and replication in computational social science. PLoS One, 10, e0134270. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134270
190. Lin, J., & Fenner, M. (2013a). Altmetrics in evolution: Defining and redefining the ontology of article-level metrics. Information Standards Quarterly, 25, 20–26.
191. Lin, J., & Fenner, M. (2013b). The many faces of article-level metrics. Bulletin of Associatioon for Infomation Science and Technology, 39, 27–30.
192. Lin, J., & Fenner, M. (2014). An analysis of Wikipedia references across PLOS publications. Presented at the altmetrics14: Expanding impacts and metrics, Bloomington, IN, USA. http://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1048991
193. Liu, J. (2014, August 14). New source alert: Policy documents. Retrieved from http://www.altmetric.com/blog/new-source-alert-policy-documents/
194. Liu, J., & Adie, E. (2013). Five challenges in altmetrics: A toolmaker' s perspective. Bulletin of Associatioon for Infomation Science and Technology, 39, 31–34.
195. Li, X., & Thelwall, M. (2012). F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (Vol. 2, pp. 451–551). Montreal: Citeseer. Retrieved from http://2012.sticonference.org/Proceedings/vol2/Li_F1000_541.pdf
196. Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91, 461–471. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0580-x
197. Loeb, S., Bayne, C.E., Frey, C., Davies, B.J., Averch, T.D., Woo, H.H., … Eggener, S.E. (2014). Use of social media in urology: Data from the American Urological Association (AUA). BJU International, 113, 993–998. http://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12586
198. Lulic, I., & Kovic, I. (2013). Analysis of emergency physicians' Twitter accounts. Emergency Medicine Journal: EMJ, 30, 371–376. http://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2012-201132
199. Luzón, M.J. (2009). Scholarly hyperwriting: The function of links in academic weblogs. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 75–89. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20937
200. Luzón, M.J. (2011). “Interesting Post, But I Disagree”: Social presence and antisocial behaviour in academic weblogs. Applied Linguistics, 32, 517–540. http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr021
201. Luzón, M.J. (2012). Your argument is wrong: A contribution to the study of evaluation in academic weblogs. Text and Talk, 32, 145–165. http://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0008
202. Madhusudhan, M. (2012). Use of social networking sites by research scholars of the University of Delhi: A study. International Information & Library Review, 44, 100–113.
203. Maflahi, N., & Thelwall, M. (2015). When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals: When are readers as good as citers for bibliometrics? Scopus vs. Mendeley for LIS Journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23369
204. Mahrt, M., & Puschmann, C. (2014). Science blogging: An exploratory study of motives, styles, and audience reactions. Journal of Science Communication, 13, A05.
205. Maleki, A. (2014). Networking in science tweets linking to scholarly articles of Iran. Presented at the SIG/MET Workshop, ASIS&T 2014 Annual Meeting, Seattle. Retrieved from http://www.asis.org/SIG/SIGMET/data/uploads/sigmet2014/maleki.pdf
206. Mandavilli, A. (2011). Trial by twitter. Nature, 469, 20. http://doi.org/10.1038/469286a
207. Mansour, E.A.H. (2015). The use of Social Networking Sites (SNSs) by the faculty members of the School of Library & Information Science, PAAET, Kuwait. The Electronic Library, 33, 524–546. http://doi.org/10.1108/EL-06-2013-0110
208. Marashi, S., Hosseini-Nami, S.M.A., Alishah, K., Hadi, M., Karimi, A., Hosseinian, S., … Shojaie, Z. (2013). Impact of Wikipedia on citation trends. EXCLI Journal, 12, 15–19.
209. Mas-Bleda, A., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., & Aguillo, I.F. (2014). Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web? Scientometrics, 101, 337–356. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1345-0
210. Maskalyk, J. (2014). Modern medicine comes online: How putting Wikipedia articles through a medical journal's traditional process can put free, reliable information into as many hands as possible. Open Medicine, 8, e116.
211. McKendrick, D.R., Cumming, G.P., & Lee, A.J. (2012). Increased use of twitter at a medical conference: A report and a review of the educational opportunities. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14, e176. http://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2144
212. McMurtrie, B. (2015, July 6). Nearly a year later, fallout from salaita case lingers on campuses. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Nearly-a-Year-Later-Fallout/231365/
213. Mehta, N., & Flickinger, T. (2014). The times they are a-changin': Academia, social media and the JGIM twitter journal club. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 29, 1317–1318. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-2976-9
214. Melero, R. (2015). Altmetrics – a complement to conventional metrics. Biochemia Medica, 25, 152–160. http://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2015.016
215. Mewburn, I., & Thomson, P. (2013). Why do academics blog? An analysis of audiences, purposes and challenges. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 1105–1119. http://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.835624
216. Micieli, R., & Micieli, J.A. (2012). Twitter as a tool for ophthalmologists. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology. Journal Canadien D'ophtalmologie, 47, 410–413. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2012.05.005
217. Mishori, R., Levy, B., & Donvan, B. (2014). Twitter use at a family medicine conference: Analyzing #STFM13. Family Medicine, 46, 608–614.
218. Mishori, R., Singh, L.O., Levy, B., & Newport, C. (2014). Mapping physician Twitter networks: Describing how they work as a first step in understanding connectivity, information flow, and message diffusion. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16, e107–e107. http://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3006
219. Moeller, E. (2009). Wikipedia Scholarly Survey Results. Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/17/Scholarly_Survey_Results.pdf
220. Mohammadi, E. (2014). Identifying the Invisible Impact of Scholarly Publications: A Multi-Disciplinary Analysis Using Altmetrics (Ph.D. thesis). University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK.
221. Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels. Scientometrics, 97, 383–395. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0993-9
222. Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 1627–1638. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23071
223. Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015). Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 1832–1846. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23286
224. Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 1198–1209. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23477
225. Moran, M., Seaman, J., & Tinti-Kane, H. (2011). Teaching, learning, and sharing: How today's higher education faculty use social media. Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED535130
226. Mortensen, T., & Walker, J. (2002). Blogging thoughts: Personal publication as an online research tool. In Morrison, A. (Ed.), Researching ICTs in context (pp. 249–479). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.156.7392&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=257
227. Mou, Y. (2014). Presenting professorship on social media: From content and strategy to evaluation. Chinese Journal of Communication, 7, 389–408. http://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2014.938669
228. Nández, G., & Borrego, Á. (2013). Use of social networks for academic purposes: A case study. The Electronic Library, 31, 781–791. http://doi.org/10.1108/EL-03-2012-0031
229. Nason, G.J., O'kelly, F., Kelly, M.E., Phelan, N., Manecksha, R.P., Lawrentschuk, N., & Murphy, D.G. (2015). The emerging use of Twitter by urological journals: Use of Twitter by urological journals. BJU International, 115, 486–490. http://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12840
230. Nentwich, M., & König, R. (2014). Academia goes facebook? The potential of social network sites in the scholarly realm. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening science (pp. 107–124). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_7
231. Neylon, C. (2014, October 3). Altmetrics: What are they good for? Retrieved from http://blogs.plos.org/opens/2014/10/03/altmetrics-what-are-they-good-for/
232. Neylon, C., Willmers, M., & King, T. (2014). Rethinking Impact: Applying Altmetrics to Southern African Research (Sholarly Communication in Africa Programme No. Paper 1).
233. Neylon, C., & Wu, S. (2009). Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biology, 7, e1000242. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000242
234. Nicholas, D., Herman, E., Jamali, H.R., Osimo, D., Pujol, L., & Porcu, F. (2015). Analysis of emerging reputation and funding mechanisms in the context of open science 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.ciber-research.eu/download/20150521-Reputation_Mechanisms-Final_report-JRC94952.pdf
235. Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Volentine, R., Allard, S., Levine, K., Tenopir, C., & Herman, E. (2014). Trust and authority in scholarly communications in the light of the digital transition: Setting the scene for a major study. Learned Publishing, 27, 121–134. http://doi.org/10.1087/20140206
236. Nielsen, F. (2007). Scientific citations in Wikipedia. First Monday, 12, http://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v12i8.1997
237. Nielsen, M. (2012). Reinventing discovery: The new era of networked science. Princeton; NJ: Princeton University Press.
238. Nyangau, J.Z., & Bado, N. (2012). Social media and marketing of higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 8, 38–51.
239. Oh, J.S., & Jeng, W. (2011). Groups in academic social networking services–An exploration of their potential as a platform for multi-disciplinary collaboration. In Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT) and 2011 IEEE Third Inernational Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom), 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on (pp. 545–548). IEEE. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6113165
240. Okoli, C., Mehdi, M., Mesgari, M., Nielsen, F., & Lanamäki, A. (2014). Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: A systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia readers and readership: Wikipedia in the Eyes of Its Beholders. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 2381–2403. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23162
241. Oladejo, M.A., Adelua, O.O., & Ige, N.A. (2013). Age, gender, and computer self-efficacy as correlates of social media usage for scholarly works in Nigeria. In Proceedings of the International Conference on eLearning (Vol. 2, p. 316). Cape Town, South Africa.
242. Ortega, J.L. (2015). Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC's members. Journal of Informetrics, 9, 39–49. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.004
243. Parkhill, M. (2013, September 19). Plum Analytics and OCLC partner to utilize WorldCat metrics for library holdings. Retrieved from http://blog.plumanalytics.com/post/61690801972/plum-analytics-and-oclc-partner-to-utilize
244. Park, T.K. (2011). The visibility of Wikipedia in scholarly publications. First Monday, 16, 8.
245. Pasquini, L.A., & Evangelopoulos, N. (2015). Organizational identity, meaning, and values: Analysis of social media guideline and policy documents (pp. 1–5). NY NY: ACM Press. http://doi.org/10.1145/2789187.2789198
246. Peters, I., Kraker, P., Lex, E., Gumpenberger, C., & Gorraiz, J. (2015). Research data explored: Citations versus altmetrics Isabella Peters, Peter Kraker, Elisabeth Lex, Christian Gumpenberger and Juan Gorraiz. In Proceedings of the 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference (pp. 172–183). Istanbul, Turkey.
247. Piwowar, H. (2012, September 14). A new framework for altmetrics. Retrieved from http://blog.impactstory.org/31524247207/
248. Piwowar, H. (2013a). Introduction altmetrics: What, why and where? Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39, 8–9.
249. Piwowar, H. (2013b). Value all research products. Nature, 493, 159. http://doi.org/10.1038/493159a
250. Piwowar, H., & Chapman, W.W. (2010). Public sharing of research datasets: A pilot study of associations. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 148–156. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.11.010
251. Podgor, E.S. (2006). Blogs and the promotion and tenure letter. Available at SSRN 1120817. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1120817
252. Pomerantz, J., Hank, C., & Sugimoto, C.R. (2015). The state of social media policies in higher education. PLoS One, 10, e0127485. http://doi.org/doi:10.1371
253. 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, 149–156. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2011.06.002
254. Potter, C.B. (2012). Virtually a historian: Blogs and the recent history of dispossessed academic labor. Historical Reflections, 38, 83–97. http://doi.org/10.3167/hrrh.2012.380207
255. Prabhu, V., & Rosenkrantz, A.B. (2015). Enriched audience engagement through twitter: Should more academic radiology departments seize the opportunity? Journal of the American College of Radiology, 12, 756–759. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2015.02.016
256. Priem, J. (2010, September 28). I like the term #articlelevelmetrics, but it fails to imply *diversity* of measures. Lately, I'm liking #altmetrics. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/jasonpriem/status/25844968813
257. Priem, J. (2014). Altmetrics. In B. Cronin & C.R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of performance (pp. 263–287). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
258. Priem, J., Costello, K., & Dzuba, T. (2012). Prevalence and use of Twitter among scholars. Presented at the Metrics 2011 Symposium on Informetric and Scientometric Research. Retreived from http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.104629
259. Priem, J., & Costello, K.L. (2010). How and why scholars cite on Twitter. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47, 1–4. http://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504701201
260. Priem, J., Groth, P., & Taraborelli, D. (2012). The altmetrics collection. PLoS One, 7, 1–2. http://doi.org/10.1023/A
261. Priem, J., & Hemminger, B.M. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15, 7. Retrieved from http://pear.accc.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/2874/2570
262. Priem, J., Piwowar, H., & Hemminger, B.M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv Print, 1–17.
263. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010, October 26). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/
264. Procter, R.N., Williams, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., Snee, H., Voss, A., & Asgari-Targhi, M. (2010a). Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 368, 4039–4056. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0155
265. Procter, R.N., Williams, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., Snee, H., Voss, A., & Asgari-Targhi, M. (2010b). If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use Web 2.0. London, UK: Research network information. Retrieved from http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/56246
266. Pscheida, D., Albrecht, S., Herbst, S., Minet, C., & Köhler, T. (2013). Nutzung von Social Media und onlinebasierten Anwendungen in der Wissenschaft. ZBW–Deutsche Zentralbibliothek für Wirtschaftswissenschaften–Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft. Retrieved from http://www.qucosa.de/fileadmin/data/qucosa/documents/13296/Science20_Datenreport_2013_PDF_A.pdf
267. Puschmann, C. (2014). Opening science. Opening Science, 89–106. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-00026-8
268. Puschmann, C., & Bastos, M. (2015). How digital are the digital humanities? An analysis of two scholarly blogging platforms. PLoS One, 10, e0115035. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115035
269. Puschmann, C., & Mahrt, M. (2012). Scholarly blogging: A new form of publishing or science journalism 2.0? In A. Tokar, M. Beurskens, S. Keuneke, M. Mahrt, I. Peters, C. Puschmann, & T. van Treeck (Eds.), Science and the internet (pp. 171–182). Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.
270. Rainie, L. (2005). The state of blogging. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2005/The-State-of-Blogging.aspx
271. Rasmussen, P.G., & Andersen, J.P. (2013). Altmetrics: An alternate perspective on research evaluation. ScieCom Info, 9. Retrieved from http://www.pjos.org/index.php/sciecominfo/article/view/7292
272. Reher, S., & Haustein, S. (2010). Social bookmarking in STM. Putting services to the acid test. Online, 34, 34–42.
273. Reinhardt, W., Ebner, M., Beham, G., & Costa, C. (2009). How People are using Twitter during Conferences. In Creativity and Innovation Competencies on the Web, Proceeding of 5th EduMedia conference (pp. 145–156). Salzburg: Hornung-Prähauser, V., Luckmann, M. (Ed.). Retrieved from http://lamp.tu-graz.ac.at/~i203/ebner/publication/09_edumedia.pdf
274. Rezaie, S.R., Swaminathan, A., Chan, T., Shaikh, S., & Lin, M. (2015). Global emergency medicine journal club: A social media discussion about the age-adjusted d-dimer cutoff levels to rule out pulmonary embolism trial. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 65, 604–613. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.02.024
275. Riesch, H., & Mendel, J. (2014). Science Blogging: Networks, Boundaries and Limitations. Science as Culture, 23, 51–72. http://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2013.801420
276. Robinson-García, N., Torres-Salinas, D., Zahedi, Z., & Costas, R. (2014). New data, new possibilities: Exploring the insides of Altmetric.com. El Profesional de La Información, 23, 359–366. http://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2014.jul.03
277. Rodgers, E., & Barbrow, S. (2013). A Look at Altmetrics and Its Growing Significance to Research Libraries. University of Michigan Library. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/99709
278. Roemer, R.C., & Borchardt, R. (2012). From bibliometrics to altmetrics A changing scholarly landscape. College & Research Libraries News, 73, 596–600.
279. Roemer, R.C., & Borchardt, R. (2013). Institutional altmetrics and academic libraries. Information Standards Quarterly, 25, 14. http://doi.org/10.3789/isqv25no2.2013.03
280. Rothschild, S., & Unglesbee, B. (2013, September). Kansas University professor receiving death threats over NRA tweet. The Dispatch. Shawnee. Retrieved from http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2013/sep/24/kansas-university-professor-receiving-death-threat/
281. Rousidis, D., Garoufallou, E., & Balatsoukas, P. (2013). Metadata requirements for repositories in health informatics research: Evidence from the analysis of social media citations. In Metadata and semantics research (Vol. 390, pp. 246–257). Springer International Publishing. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-03437-9_25
282. Rousseau, R., & Ye, F.Y. (2013). A multi-metric approach for research evaluation. Chinese Science Bulletin, 58, 3288–3290. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-013-5939-3
283. Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Russell, B., Canty, N., & Watkinson, A. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing, 24, 183–195. http://doi.org/10.1087/20110306
284. Rush, E.K., & Tracy, S.J. (2010). Wikipedia as public scholarship: Communicating our impact online. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 309–315. http://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2010.490846
285. Samoilenko, A., & Yasseri, T. (2014). The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: A quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics. EPJ Data Science, 3, 1–11. http://doi.org/10.1140/epjds20
286. Schlögl, C., Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., Jack, K., & Kraker, P. (2013). Download vs. citation vs. readership data: The case of an information systems journal. Proceedings of the 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, 626–634.
287. Schlögl, C., Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., Jack, K., & Kraker, P. (2014). Comparison of downloads, citations and readership data for two information systems journals. Scientometrics, 101, 1113–1128. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1365-9
288. Shanahan, M.C. (2011). Science blogs as boundary layers: Creating and understanding new writer and reader interactions through science blogging. Journalism, 12, 903–919.
289. Shema, H., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2014). 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, 65, 1018–1027. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23037
290. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2012). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PLoS One, 7, e35869–e35869. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035869
291. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Scholarly blogs are a promising altmetric source. Research Trends, 37, 1–4.
292. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2015). How is research blogged? A content analysis approach: How is research blogged? A content analysis approach. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 1136–1149. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23239
293. Shuai, X., Jiang, Z., Liu, X., & Bollen, J. (2013). A comparative study of academic and Wikipedia ranking. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries (pp. 25–28). ACM. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2467746
294. Shuai, X., Pepe, A., & Bollen, J. (2012). How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: Article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citations. PLoS One, 7, e47523–e47523. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047523
295. Smith, D.G. (2006). A case study in bloggership. Washington University Law Review, 84, 1135.
296. Smith, R. (1999). Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ, 318, 4–5. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.4
297. Solum, L.B. (2006). Blogging and the transformation of legal scholarship. Washington University Law Review, 84, 1071.
298. Sopan, A., Rey, P.J., Butler, B., & Shneiderman, B. (2012). Monitoring academic conferences: Real-time visualization and retrospective analysis of backchannel conversations. 2012 International Conference on Social Informatics, (SocialInformatics), 62–69. http://doi.org/10.1109/SocialInformatics.2012.20
299. Stewart, J., Procter, R., Williams, R., & Poschen, M. (2013). The role of academic publishers in shaping the development of Web 2.0 services for scholarly communication. New Media & Society, 15, 413–432. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812465141
300. Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98, 1131–1143. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2
301. Sugimoto, C.R. (2015, June 24). “Attention is not impact” and other challenges for altmetrics. Retrieved from http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2015/06/24/attention-is-not-impact-and-other-challenges-for-altmetrics/#comment-2097762855
302. Sugimoto, C.R., Hank, C., Bowman, T.D., & Pomerantz, J. (2015). Friend or faculty: Social networking sites, dual relationships, and context collapse in higher education. First Monday, 20. Retrieved from http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5387
303. Sugimoto, C.R., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Scholars on soap boxes: Science communication and dissemination in TED videos. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 663–674. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22764
304. Sugimoto, C.R., Thelwall, M., Larivière, V., Tsou, A., Mongeon, P., & Macaluso, B. (2013). Scientists popularizing science: Characteristics and impact of TED talk presenters. PLoS One, 8, e62403. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062403
305. Sweet, D.J. (2014). Keeping Score. Cell Stem Cell, 14, 691–692. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2014.05.015
306. Swoger, B.J.M. (2013). Reference Backtalk: F1000Research: A new scientific method. Library Journal, 138, 116.
307. Taraborelli, D. (2008). Soft peer review: Social software and distributed scientific evaluation. Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, 99–110.
308. Taraborelli, D., Mietchen, D., Alevizou, P., & Gill, A. (2011). Expert participation on Wikipedia: Barriers and opportunities. In Wikimania 2011. Haifa, Israel. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/32619/1/Expert_Participation_Survey_-_Wikimania_2011.pdf
309. Tattersall, A. (2015). For what it's worth-the open peer review landscape. Online Information Review, 39. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/OIR-06-2015-0182
310. Taylor, M. (2013a). Exploring the boundaries: How altmetrics can expand our vision of scholarly communication and social impact. Information Standards Quarterly, 25, 27. http://doi.org/10.3789/isqv25no2.2013.05
311. Taylor, M. (2013b). Towards a common model of citation: Some thoughts on merging altmetrics and bibliometrics. Research Trends, 1–6. https://www.researchtrends.com/issue-35-december-2013/towards-a-common-model-of-citation-some-thoughts-on-merging-altmetrics-and-bibliometrics/
312. Tenopir, C., Allard, S., Douglass, K., Aydinoglu, A.U., Wu, L., Read, E., … Frame, M. (2011). Data sharing by scientists: Practices and perceptions. PLoS One, 6, e21101. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021101
313. Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., & King, D.W. (2013). Social media and scholarly reading. Online Information Review, 37, 193–216. http://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2012-0062
314. Thangasamy, I.A., Leveridge, M., Davies, B.J., Finelli, A., Stork, B., & Woo, H.H. (2014). International urology journal club via twitter: 12-Month experience. European Urology, 66, 112–117. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.034
315. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C.R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS One, 8, e64841–e64841. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064841
316. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2014). Academia.edu: Social network or academic network?. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 721–731. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23038
317. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 876–889. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23236
318. Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Weller, K., & Puschmann, C. (2012). Assessing the impact of online academic videos. In G. Widén & K. Holmberg (Eds.), Social information research (Vol. 5, pp. 195–213). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S1876-0562%282012%290000005011
319. Thelwall, M., & Sud, P. (2015). Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 3036–3050. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23559
320. Thelwall, M., Sud, P., & Vis, F. (2012). Commenting on YouTube videos: From guatemalan rock to El Big Bang. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 616–629. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21679
321. Thelwall, M., Tsou, A., Weingart, S., Holmberg, K., & Haustein, S. (2013). Tweeting links to academic articles. Cybermetrics: International Journal of Scientometrics, Informetrics and Bibliometrics, 17, 1–8.
322. Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (2015). Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 1962–1972. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23501
323. Thoma, B., Rolston, D., & Lin, M. (2014). Global emergency medicine journal club: Social media responses to the march 2014 annals of emergency medicine journal club on targeted temperature management∗. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 64, 207–212. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.06.003
324. Thoma, B., Sanders, J., Lin, M., Paterson, Q., Steeg, J., & Chan, T. (2015). The social media index: Measuring the impact of emergency medicine and critical care websites. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 16, 242–249. http://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2015.1.24860
325. Thung, F., Bissyande, T.F., Lo, D., & Jiang, L. (2013). Network structure of social coding in GitHub (pp. 323–326). IEEE. http://doi.org/10.1109/CSMR.2013.41
326. Topf, J.M., & Hiremath, S. (2015). Social media, medicine and the modern journal club. International Review of Psychiatry, 27, 147–154. http://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2014.998991
327. Torres-Salinas, D., Cabezas-Clavijo, Á., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2013). Altmetrics: New indicators for scientific communication in web 2.0. Comunicar, 21, 53–60. http://doi.org/10.3916/C41-2013-05
328. Torres-Salinas, D., Jiménez-Contreras, E., & Robinson-García, N. (2014). How many citations are there in the data citation index? In Book of Abstracts of the 19th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 623–629). Leiden, the Netherlands.
329. Townsend, F. (2013). Post-publication peer review: PubPeer. Editors' Bulletin, 9, 45–46. http://doi.org/10.1080/17521742.2013.865333
330. Tsou, A., Bowman, T.D., Ghazinejad, A., & Sugimoto, C.R. (2015). Who tweets about science? In Proceedings of the 2015 International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 95–100). Istanbul, Turkey. Retrieved from http://www.issi2015.org/files/downloads/all-papers/0095.pdf
331. Tsou, A., Thelwall, M., Mongeon, P., & Sugimoto, C.R. (2014). A community of curious souls: An analysis of commenting behavior on TED talks videos. PLoS One, 9, e93609. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093609
332. University of Edinburgh Digital Curation Centre. (2010). Open to All? Case studies of openness in research (RIN/NESTA Open Science Case Studies No. RIN/P27).
333. Van Eperen, L., & Marincola, F.M. (2011). How scientists use social media to communicate their research. Journal of Translational Medicine, 9, 199–199. http://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5876-9-199
334. Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512, 126–129. http://doi.org/10.1038/512126a
335. van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., & Smith, R. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomised trial. BMJ, 318, 23–27. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23
336. Veletsianos, G. (2012). Higher education scholars' participation and practices on Twitter. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 336–349. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00449.x
337. Veletsianos, G. (2013). Open practices and identity: Evidence from researchers and educators' social media participation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 639–651. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12052
338. Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2013). Scholars and faculty members' lived experiences in online social networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 43–50. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.01.004
339. Viney, I. (2013). Altmetrics: Research council responds. Nature, 494, 176. http://doi.org/10.1038/494176c
340. Wade, L., & Sharp, G. (2013). Sociological images: Blogging as public sociology. Social Science Computer Review, 31, 221–228. http://doi.org/10.1177/0894439312442356
341. Walker, J. (2006). Blogging from inside the ivory tower. In A. Bruns & J. Jacobs (Eds.), Uses of blogs (pp. 127–138). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Retrieved from https://bora.uib.no/handle/1956/1846
342. Waltman, L., & Costas, R. (2014). F1000 recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation: A comparison with citations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 433–445. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23040
343. Wang, X., Jiang, T., & Ma, F. (2010). Blog-supported scientific communication: An exploratory analysis based on social hyperlinks in a Chinese blog community. Journal of Information Science, 36, 690–704. http://doi.org/10.1177/0165551510383189
344. Wardle, D.A. (2010). Do “Faculty of 1000” (F1000) ratings of ecological publications serve as reasonable predictors of their future impact? Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 3, 11–15. http://doi.org/10.4033/iee.2010.3.3.c
345. Weller, K. (2015). Social media and altmetrics: An overview of current alternative approaches to measuring scholarly impact. In I.M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, & M. Osterloh (Eds.), Incentives and performance (pp. 261–276). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5_16
346. Weller, K., Dornstädter, R., Freimanis, R., Klein, R.N., & Perez, M. (2010). Social software in academia: Three studies on users' acceptance of Web 2.0 Services. Retrieved from http://journal.webscience.org/360/2/websci10_submission_62.pdf
347. Weller, K., Dröge, E., & Puschmann, C. (2011). Citation analysis in Twitter: Approaches for defining and measuring information flows within tweets during scientific conferences. In Proceedings of the ESWC2011 Workshop on “Making Sense of Microposts”: Big things come in small packages (Vol. 718, pp. 1–12). Heraklion, Greece. Retrieved from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-718/msm2011_proceedings.pdf
348. Weller, K., & Peters, I. (2012). Citations in Web 2. 0. In Science and the internet (pp. 209–222). Dusseldorf, Germany: Düsseldorf University Press.
349. Weller, K., & Puschmann, C. (2011). Twitter for scientific communication: How can citations/references be identified and measured? In Proceedings of the ACM WebSci'11. Koblenz, Germany.
350. Wets, K., Weedon, D., & Velterop, J. (2003). Post-publication filtering and evaluation: Faculty of 1000. Learned Publishing, 16, 249–258.
351. Whitburn, T., Walshe, C., & Sleeman, K.E. (2015). International palliative care journal club on twitter: Experience so far. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, 5, 120.2–120. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2014-000838.48
352. Whitworth, B., & Friedman, R. (2009). Reinventing academic publishing online. Part II: A socio-technical vision. First Monday, 14, Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2642
353. Wilkins, J.S. (2008). The roles, reasons and restrictions of science blogs. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23, 411–413. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.05.004
354. Wilkinson, C., & Weitkamp, E. (2013). A case study in serendipity: Environmental researchers use of traditional and social media for dissemination. PLoS One, 8, e84339–e84339. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084339
355. Williams, R., Pryor, G., Bruce, A., Macdonald, S., Marsden, W., Calvert, J., … Neilson, C. (2009). Patterns of information use and exchange: Case studies of researchers in the life sciences (Research Information Network Report). University of Edinburgh Digital Curation Centre. Retrieved from http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessing-information-resources/patterns-information-use-and-exchange-case-studie
356. Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S., Hill, S., … Johnson, B. (2015). The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363
357. Wilson, M.W., & Starkweather, S. (2014). Web Presence of Academic Geographers: A Generational Divide? The Professional Geographer, 66, 73–81. http://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2013.765290
358. Woolston, C. (2015). Potential flaws in genomics paper scrutinized on Twitter. Nature, 7553, 397. http://doi.org/10.1038/521397f
359. Wouters, P. (2016). Semiotics and citations. In C.R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication (pp. 72–92). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
360. Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, Narcissism and control — Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. In Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (Vol. 2, pp. 847–857). Retrieved from http://2012.sticonference.org/Proceedings/vol2/Wouters_Users_847.pdf
361. Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., & Franssen, T. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management No. Supplementary Report I). HEFCE. Retrieved from 10.13140/RG.2.1.5066.3520
362. Xiao, L., & Askin, N. (2012). Wikipedia for academic publishing: Advantages and challenges. Online Information Review, 36, 359–373. http://doi.org/10.1108/14684521211241396
363. Xiao, L., & Askin, N. (2014). Academic opinions of Wikipedia and Open Access publishing. Online Information Review, 38, 332–347. http://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2013-0062
364. You, J. (2014). Who are the science stars of Twitter? Science, 345, 1440–1441. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.345.6203.1440
365. Zahedi, Z., Bowman, T.D., & Haustein, S. (2014). Exploring data quality and retrieval strategies for Mendeley reader counts. Presented at the SIG/MET Workshop, ASIS&T 2014 Annual Meeting, Seattle. Retrieved from http://www.asis.org/SIG/SIGMET/data/uploads/sigmet2014/zahedi.pdf
366. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014a). Assessing the impact of publications saved by Mendeley users: Is there any different pattern among users? In IATUL Conference, Espoo, Finland, June 2-5 2014. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/2014/altmetrics/4
367. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014b). How well developed are altmetrics? Cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of “alternative metrics” in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1491–1513. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1264-0
368. Zahedi, Z., Fenner, M., & Costas, R. (2014). How consistent are altmetrics providers? Study of 1000 PLOS ONE publications using the PLOS ALM, Mendeley and Altmetric. com APIs. In altmetrics 14. Workshop at the Web Science Conference, Bloomington, USA. Retrieved from http://files.figshare.com/1945874/How_consistent_are_altmetrics_providers__5_.pdf
369. Zahedi, Z., & Van Eck, N.J. (2014). Visualizing readership activity of Mendeley users using VOSviewer. In altmetrics14: Expanding impacts and metrics, Workshop at Web Science Conference 2014 (Vol. 1041819). Bloomington, IN, USA. http://doi.org/10.6084/m9
370. Zedda, M., & Barbaro, A. (2015). Adoption of web 2.0 tools among STM publishers. How social are scientific journals? Journal of the EAHIL, 11, 9–12.
371. Zohoorian-Fooladi, N., & Abrizah, A. (2013). Academic librarians and their social media presence: A story of motivations and deterrents. Information Development, 30, 159–171. http://doi.org/10.1177/0266666913481689
372. Zuccala, A.A., Verleysen, F.T., Cornacchia, R., & Engels, T.C.E. (2015). Altmetrics for the humanities: Comparing Goodreads reader ratings with citations to history books. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67, 320–336. http://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-11-2014-0152