Interpreting ‘altmetrics’: Viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories

Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 372-405

  Haustein, Stefanie ^a   Bowman, Timothy D ^a   Costas, Rodrigo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85097358208     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1515/9783110308464-022     Document Type: Chapter

References (110)

1. Adie, E. (2014). Taking the alternative mainstream. El Profesional de La Informacion, 23(4), 349-351.
2. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Preview, 27(1), 17-40.
3. Almind, T. C., & Ingwersen, P. (1997). Informetric analyses on the world wide web: methodological approaches to “webometrics.” Journal of Documentation, 53(4), 404-426. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000007205
4. Barabási, A. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439), 509-512. doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509
5. Bertin, M., Atanassova, I., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2015). The invariant distribution of references in scientific articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi:10.1002/asi.23367
6. Bilder, G., Fenner, M., Lin, J., & Neylon, C. (2015). ALM Workshop 2014 Report. doi:10.6084/ m9.figshare.1287503
7. Bonitz, M., Bruckner, E., & Scharnhorst, A. (1997). Characteristics and impact of the Matthew effect for countries. Scientometrics, 40(3), 407-422. doi:10.1007/BF02459289
8. Borghuis, M. G. M. (1997). User feedback from electronic subscriptions: The possibilities of logfile analysis. Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, 21(3), 373-380. doi:10.1016/ S0364-6408(97)00066-5
9. Bornmann, L. (2014a). Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 647-648. doi:10.1002/ asi.23073
10. Bornmann, L. (2014b). Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 935-950. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.007
11. Bourdieu, P. (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information, 14(6), 19-47. doi:10.1177/0539018475 01400602
12. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.
13. Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.
14. Bozionelos, N. (2014). Careers patterns in Greek academia: social capital and intelligent careers, but for whom? Career Development International, 19(3), 264-294. doi:10.1108/ CDI-01-2014-0011
15. Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
16. Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
17. Colquhoun, D. (2014). Why you should ignore altmetrics and other bibliometric nightmares. DC’s Improbable Science. Retrieved February 09, 2015, from http://www.dcscience.net/ 2014/01/16/why-you-should-ignore-altmetrics-and-other-bibliometric-nightmares/
18. Costas, R., & Van Leeuwen, T. N. (2012). Referencing patterns of individual researchers: Do top scientists rely on more extensive information sources? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2433-2450. doi:10.1002/asi.22662
19. 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(10), 2003-2019. doi:10.1002/asi.23309
20. 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(3), 260-288. doi:10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0173
21. Cronin, B. (1981). The need for a theory of citing. Journal of Documentation, 37(1), 16-24. doi:10.1108/eb026703
22. Cronin, B. (2001). Bibliometrics and beyond: Some thoughts on web-based citation analysis. Journal of Information Science, 27(1), 1-7. doi:10.1177/016555150102700101
23. Cronin, B. (2005a). A hundred million acts of whimsy? Current Science, 89(9), 1505-1509.
24. Cronin, B. (2005b). The Hand of Science: Academic Writing and Its Rewards. Lanham: Scarecrow Press.
25. 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(14), 1319-1328. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1998)49:141319::AID-ASI93.0.CO;2-W
26. Cronin, B., & Weaver, S. (1995). The praxis of acknowledgement: from bibliometrics to influmetrics. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 18(2), 172-177. Retrieved from http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3638277
27. Davenport, T. H., & Beck, J. C. (2001). The Attention Economy: Understanding the New Currency of Business. Harvard Business Press.
28. De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis. From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics. Lanham: Scarecrow Press.
29. De Solla Price, D. J. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149(3683), 510-515.
30. Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e123. doi:10.2196/jmir.2012
31. Falkinger, J. (2003). Attention economies. Journal of Economic Theory, 133(1), 266-294.
32. 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(12), e50109. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050109
33. Franck, G. (2002). The scientific economy of attention: A novel approach to the collective rationality of science. Scientometrics, 55(1), 3-26.
34. 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 Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Istanbul, Turkey. (pp. 107-108). Retrieved from:http://www.issi2015.org/files/downloads/all-papers/0107.pdf
35. Garfield, E. (1964). “Science Citation Index”-A new dimension in indexing. Science, 144(3619), 649-654.
36. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The Theory of Affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology (pp. 127-143). Lawrence Erlbaum.
37. Gilbert, G. N. (1977). Referencing as Persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7(1), 113-122. doi:10.1177/030631277700700112
38. Gilpin, D. (2011). Working the Twittersphere: Microblogging as professional identity construction. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community and culture on social network sites (pp. 232-250). New York: Routledge.
39. Glänzel, W., & Gorraiz, J. (2014). Usage metrics versus altmetrics: confusing terminology? Scientometrics, 102(3), 2161-2164. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1472-7
40. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1st ed.). Anchor.
41. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience (p. 586). Boston: Northeastern University Press. doi:10.4135/9781412952552.n110
42. Gosling, S. D. S. D., Gaddis, S., & Vazire, S. (2007). Personality Impressions Based on Facebook Profiles. In International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 1-4). Boulder.
43. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
44. Guns, R. (2013). The three dimensions of informetrics: a conceptual view. Journal of Documentation, 69(2), 295-308. doi:10.1108/00220411311300093
45. Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., Holmberg, K., Tsou, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2015a). Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated bot accounts on Twitter. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi:10.1002/asi.23456
46. Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015b). Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: the effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLOS ONE, 10(3), e0120495. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120495
47. Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2014). Mendeley as the source of global readership by students and postdocs? In IATUL Conference, Espoo, Finland, June 2-5 2014.. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2033&context=iatul
48. Haustein, S., Larivière, V., Thelwall, M., Amyot, D., & Peters, I. (2014a). Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ? It - Information Technology, 56(5), 207-215. doi:10.1515/itit-2014-1048
49. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., & Larivière, V. (2014b). Tweeting biomedicine: an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 656-669. doi:10.1002/ asi.23101
50. Haustein, S., & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 446-457. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.04.002
51. Higher Education Funding Councils Funding Council of England. (2011). Decisions on assessing research impact. Research Excellent Framework (REF) 2014. Retrieved from http://www.ref. ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/decisionsonassessingresearchimpact/01_11.pdf
52. Hofer, M., & Aubert, V. (2013). Perceived bridging and bonding social capital on Twitter: Differentiating between followers and followees. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2134-2142. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.038
53. Holmberg, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1027-1042. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1229-3
54. Huberman, B. A. (2013). Social computing and the attention economy. Journal of Statistical Physics, 151(1-2), 329-339. doi:10.1007/s10955-012-0596-5
55. Kaplan, N. (1965). The norms of citation behavior: Prolegomena to the footnote. American Documentation, 16, 179-184. doi:10.1002/asi.5090160305
56. Kaplan, N. R., & Nelson, M. L. (2000). Determining the publication impact of a digital library. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(4), 324-339. doi:10.1002/ (SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:4324::AID-ASI33.0.CO;2-B
57. King, J. (1987). A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 13, 261-276.
58. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
59. Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2010). The impact factor’s Matthew Effect: A natural experiment in bibliometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2), 424-427.
60. 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(1), 2-17. doi:10.1002/ asi.22784
61. Leydesdorff, L. (1998). Theories of citation? Scientometrics, 43(1), 5-25. doi:10.1007/ BF02458391
62. Lin, J., & Fenner, M. (2013). Altmetrics in evolution: Defining and redefining the ontology of article-level metrics. Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2), 20-26. Retrieved from http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/11273/IP_Lin_Fenner_PLOS_ altmetrics_isqv25no2.pdf
63. Luther, J. (2001). White Paper on Electronic Journal Usage Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub94/pub94.pdf
64. Matthews, A. F. (2012). Managing distraction and attention in diverse co-horts: 21st century challenges to law student engagement. Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal, 12(1), 45-65.
65. Maxwell, J. a. (2009). Designing a Qualitative Study. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods (pp. 214-253). London: SAGE Publications.
66. Merton, R. K. (1968a). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.
67. Merton, R. K. (1968b). The Matthew Effect in Science. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.
68. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
69. Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79, 606-623.
70. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
71. Mohammadi, E. (2014). Identifying the Invisible Impact of Scholarly Publications: A Multidisciplinary Analysis Using Altmetrics. University of Wolverhampton.
72. Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels. Scientometrics, 97(2), 383-395. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-0993-9
73. Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(8), 1627-1638. doi:10.1002/asi.23071
74. 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(9), 1832-1846. doi: 10.1002/asi.23286
75. Murugesan, P., & Moravcsik, M. J. (1978). Variation of the nature of citation measures with journals and scientific specialties. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 29(3), 141-147. doi:10.1002/asi.4630290307
76. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Physical Review E, 64(2), 025102. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.64.025102
77. Newman, M. E. J. (2005). Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemporary Physics, 46(5), 323-351.
78. Neylon, C. (2014). Altmetrics: What are they good for? PLOS Opens. Retrieved from http:// blogs.plos.org/opens/2014/10/03/altmetrics-what-are-they-good-for/.
79. Nicolaisen, J. (2007). Citation analysis. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 609-641.
80. Otlet, P. (1934). Traité de documentation. Le Livre sur le Livre: Théorie et Pratique. Bruxelles:D. Van Keerberghen & fils.
81. Piwowar, H. A. (2013). Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature, 493(7431), 159. doi:10.1038/493159a
82. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1-24.
83. Price, D. J. D. S. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(5), 292-306. doi:10.1002/asi.4630270505
84. Priem, J. (2010). I like the term #articlelevelmetrics, but it fails to imply *diversity* of measures. Lately, I’m liking #altmetrics. 21 September 2010, 3:28 a.m. Tweet.
85. Priem, J. (2014). Altmetrics. In B. Cronin & C. R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: harnessing multi-dimensional indicators of performance (pp. 263-287). Cambridge: MIT Press.
86. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Alt-metrics: a manifesto. October. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/
87. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
88. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
89. Riviera, E. (2015). Testing the strength of the normative approach in citation theory through relational bibliometrics: The case of Italian sociology. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(6), 1178-1188. doi:10.1002/asi.23248
90. Rousseau, R., & Ye, Y. (2013). A multi-metric approach for research evaluation. Chinese Science Bulletin, 58(26), 3288-3290. doi:10.1007/s11434-013-5939-3
91. Rui, H., & Whinston, A. (2011). Information or attention? An empirical study of user contribution on Twitter. Information Systems and E-Business Management, 10(3), 309-324. doi:10.1007/s10257-011-0164-6
92. Satuluri, V. (2013). Stay in the know. Twitter blog post 24 September 2013. Retrieved from https://blog.twitter.com/2013/stay-in-the-know
93. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J. and Thelwall, M. (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(5), 1018-1027. doi: 10.1002/asi.23037
94. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J. and Thelwall, M. (2015). How is research blogged? A content analysis approach. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(6), 1136-1149. doi: 10.1002/asi.23239
95. Simon, H. A. (1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. In M. Greenberger (Ed.), Computers, Communications, and the Public Interest (pp. 37-72). John Hopkins Press.
96. Small, H. (1978). Cited documents as concept symbols. Social Studies of Science, 8, 327-340. doi:10.1177/030631277800800305
97. Small, H. (2004). On the shoulders of Robert Merton: Towards a normative theory of citation. Scientometrics, 60(1), 71-79. doi:10.1023/B:SCIE.0000027310.68393.bc
98. Steinfield, C., Dimicco, J. M., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2009). Bowling Online?: Social Networking and Social Capital within the Organization. In 4th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (pp. 245-254). University Park, Pennsylvania: ACM Press.
99. Taylor, M. (2014). Towards a common model of citation: some thoughts on merging altmetrics and bibliometrics. Research Trends (35). Retrieved from http://www.researchtrends.com/ issue-35-december-2013/towards-a-common-model-of-citation-some-thoughts-onmerging- altmetrics-and-bibliometrics/
100. Thelwall, M., Shema, H., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2012). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e35869. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035869
101. Thelwall, M., Tsou, A., Weingart, S., Holmberg, K., & Haustein, S. (2013). Tweeting links to academic articles. Cybermetrics: International Journal of Scientometrics, Informetrics and Bibliometrics, 1-8. Retrieved from http://cybermetrics.cindoc.csic.es/articles/v17i1p1. html
102. Valenzuela, S. S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2008). Lessons from Facebook: The Effect of Social Network Sites on College Students’ Social Capital. In 9th International Symposium on Online Journalism (pp. 1-4). Austin, Texas. Retrieved from: https://online.journalism. utexas.edu/2008/papers/Valenzuela.pdf
103. 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(3), 433-445. doi:10.1002/asi
104. Weisbuch, M., Ivcevic, Z., & Ambady, N. (2009). On being liked on the web and in the “real world”: Consistency in first impressions across personal webpages and spontaneous behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 573-576. doi:10.1016/ j.jesp.2008.12.009
105. White, H. D. (2004). Reward, persuasion, and the Sokal Hoax: a study in citation identities. Scientometrics, 60(1), 93-120.
106. Wouters, P. (1999). The Citation Culture. University of Amsterdam.
107. Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control - tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. (M. Van Berchum & K. Russell, Eds.) Image Rochester NY. SURFfoundation.
108. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2013). What is the impact of the publications read by the different Mendeley users? Could they help to identify alternative types of impact? PLoS ALM Workshop. San Francisco. Retrieved from http://article-level-metrics.plos.org/files/ 2013/10/Zahedi.pptx
109. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014). How well developed are altmetrics? cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of “alternative metrics” in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1491-1513. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1264-0
110. Ziman, J. (2000). Real Science: what it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.