Taking Big Data research as a case study, this article intends to investigate the cognitive relatedness of research topics across the global science landscape to a focal topic. Several levels of... Show moreTaking Big Data research as a case study, this article intends to investigate the cognitive relatedness of research topics across the global science landscape to a focal topic. Several levels of cognitive relatedness are established depending on the citation distance between the citing publications and a core set of publications. The concept of citation generation is adopted for identifying and classifying other publications with different levels of relatedness to the core set. The micro publication-level classification system of Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) is applied for determining clusters of publication sets at the topic level. The overall cognitive relatedness of micro clusters to Big Data core publications are measured based on the mean citation generation of all the publications in corresponding clusters. In addition to the given clusters, this study also explores the 'topics' relatedness from a semantic point of view, by extracting high-frequency title terms of publications in each generation. Results show that data analysis methods and technologies are the topics with the strongest cognitive relatedness to Big Data research, while topics on physics and astronomy studies present the weakest relatedness. This approach allows assessment of relatedness between research topics by considering the citations distribution across multiple citation generations, and can provide useful insights to study and characterise topics with fuzzy boundaries or are difficult to delineate, thus representing a novel toolset relevant in the context of studying interdisciplinary research. Show less
The study of how science is discussed and how scholarly actors interact on social media has increasingly become popular in the field of scientometrics in recent years. While most prior studies... Show moreThe study of how science is discussed and how scholarly actors interact on social media has increasingly become popular in the field of scientometrics in recent years. While most prior studies focused on research outputs discussed on global platforms, such as Twitter or Facebook, the presence of scholarly journals on local platforms was seldom studied, especially in the Chinese social media context. To fill this gap, this study investigates the uptake of WeChat (a Chinese social network app) by the Chinese scholarly journals indexed by the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI). The results show that 65.3% of CSSCI-indexed journals have created WeChat public accounts and posted over 193 thousand WeChat posts in total. At the journal level, bibliometric indicators (e.g., citations, downloads, and journal impact factors) and WeChat indicators (e.g., clicks, likes, replies, and recommendations) are weakly correlated with each other, reinforcing the idea of fundamentally differentiated dimensions of indicators between bibliometrics and social media metrics. Results also show that journals with WeChat public accounts slightly outperform those without WeChat public accounts in terms of citation impact, suggesting that the WeChat presence of scientific journals is mostly positively associated with their citation impact. Show less
The data re-collection for tweets from data snapshots is a common methodological step in Twitter-based research. Understanding better the volatility of tweets over time is important for validating... Show moreThe data re-collection for tweets from data snapshots is a common methodological step in Twitter-based research. Understanding better the volatility of tweets over time is important for validating the reliability of metrics based on Twitter data. We tracked a set of 37,918 original scholarly tweets mentioning COVID-19-related research daily for 56 days and captured the reasons for the changes in their availability over time. Results show that the proportion of unavailable tweets increased from 1.6 to 2.6% in the time window observed. Of the 1,323 tweets that became unavailable at some point in the period observed, 30.5% became available again afterwards. “Revived” tweets resulted mainly from the unprotecting, reactivating, or unsuspending of users' accounts. Our findings highlight the importance of noting this dynamic nature of Twitter data in altmetric research and testify to the challenges that this poses for the retrieval, processing, and interpretation of Twitter data about scientific papers. Show less
Sufficient data presence is one of the key preconditions for applying metrics in practice. Based on both Altmetric.com data and Mendeley data collected up to 2019, this paper presents a state-of... Show moreSufficient data presence is one of the key preconditions for applying metrics in practice. Based on both Altmetric.com data and Mendeley data collected up to 2019, this paper presents a state-of-the-art analysis of the presence of 12 kinds of altmetric events for nearly 12.3 million Web of Science publications published between 2012 and 2018. Results show that even though an upward trend of data presence can be observed over time, except for Mendeley readers and Twitter mentions, the overall presence of most altmetric data is still low. The majority of altmetric events go to publications in the fields of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities, and Life and Earth Sciences. As to research topics, the level of attention received by research topics varies across altmetric data, and specific altmetric data show different preferences for research topics, on the basis of which a framework for identifyinghotresearch topics is proposed and applied to detect research topics with higher levels of attention garnered on certain altmetric data source. Twitter mentions and policy document citations were selected as two examples to identify hot research topics of interest of Twitter users and policy-makers, respectively, shedding light on the potential of altmetric data in monitoring research trends of specific social attention. Show less
Costas, R.; Mongeon, P.; Ferreira, M.R.; Honk, J. van; Franssen, T. 2020
This study investigated the stability of Twitter counts of scientific publications over time. For this, we conducted an analysis of the availability statuses of over 2.6 million Twitter mentions... Show moreThis study investigated the stability of Twitter counts of scientific publications over time. For this, we conducted an analysis of the availability statuses of over 2.6 million Twitter mentions received by the 1,154 most tweeted scientific publications recorded by Altmetric.com up to October 2017. The results show that of the Twitter mentions for these highly tweeted publications, about 14.3% had become unavailable by April 2019. Deletion of tweets by users is the main reason for unavailability, followed by suspension and protection of Twitter user accounts. This study proposes two measures for describing the Twitter dissemination structures of publications: Degree of Originality (i.e., the proportion of original tweets received by an article) and Degree of Concentration (i.e., the degree to which retweets concentrate on a single original tweet). Twitter metrics of publications with relatively low Degree of Originality and relatively high Degree of Concentration were observed to be at greater risk of becoming unstable due to the potential disappearance of their Twitter mentions. In light of these results, we emphasize the importance of paying attention to the potential risk of unstable Twitter counts, and the significance of identifying the different Twitter dissemination structures when studying the Twitter metrics of scientific publications. Show less
As bibliographic reference managers like Mendeley made their data openly available, it became possible to track where in the world research was being saved from. This data offered the opportunity... Show moreAs bibliographic reference managers like Mendeley made their data openly available, it became possible to track where in the world research was being saved from. This data offered the opportunity to better understand how research circulates at a global scale with measures that go beyond citations. This paper explores this circulation by studying fluctuations in rankings between countries when they are based on mean normalized citation scores (MNCS) or on mean normalized Mendeley readership scores (MNRS). Results show that both indicators are moderately correlated at the country level, but that countries from the Global South (namely African and South American countries) perform better when ranked by Mendeley readership than by citations. In addition, publications from South America and Africa tend to have a lower citation impact compared to those from Europe and North America, even when compared with publications that have the same number of readers. These results suggest that the indicator chosen (i.e., citations or Mendeley readers) creates different (dis)advantages among scholarly actors (e.g. countries, research organizations, journals, etc.). It also hints at the need to establish evaluation frameworks that consider that different metrics play different roles across institutional and geographical boundaries. We conclude by proposing further ways of exploring these metrics. Show less
This paper analyse the funding structure of seven countries that differ in their level of economic development, geo-political links, and R&D intensity (Brazil, Germany, The Netherlands, South... Show moreThis paper analyse the funding structure of seven countries that differ in their level of economic development, geo-political links, and R&D intensity (Brazil, Germany, The Netherlands, South Africa, South Korea, Spain and Sweden), in two biomedical disciplines (Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems and Virology). The main objectives are (1)to provide a general overview of the research funding structure through the analysis of FAs recorded in publication, and (2) to explore what countries benefit more from international funding support, to what extent this support is associated to international collaboration and whether there are cross-country differences in the trend of countries to lead internationally funded research. Show less
Mongeon, P.; Xu, S.; Bowman, T.D.; Costas, R. 2018
The aim of this paper is to demonstrate how topical distance and social distance can provide meaningful results when analysing scholars’ tweets linking to scholarly publications. To do so, we... Show moreThe aim of this paper is to demonstrate how topical distance and social distance can provide meaningful results when analysing scholars’ tweets linking to scholarly publications. To do so, we analyse the social and topical distance between tweeted information science papers and their academic tweeters. This allows us to characterize the tweets of scientific papers, the tweeting behavior of scholars, and the relationship between tweets and citations. Show less
In this study the velocity of 12 Altmetric.com data sources in disseminating newly published research outputs is investigated. The Velocity Index is proposed to make a comparison of velocity among... Show moreIn this study the velocity of 12 Altmetric.com data sources in disseminating newly published research outputs is investigated. The Velocity Index is proposed to make a comparison of velocity among Altmetric.com data sources across document types and subject fields. Some altmetric posts accumulated very fast within the first few days after publication, such as Reddit, Twitter, News, and Facebook, while posts of Policy documents, Wikipedia, Q&A, and Peer review with low Velocity Index values accrued relatively slowly. Most data sources’ velocity degree also change by document types and subject fields. The velocity of most data sources confronted with the type of Review is lower than the overall and Article, while Editorial Material and Letter are higher. In general, most altmetric data sources show higher velocity values in the fields of Multidisciplinary Journals and Natural Sciences. Show less
We analyze the role of leadership and scientific collaborative relationships in constituting the disciplinary specialization between countries and its research performance. Authorship order... Show moreWe analyze the role of leadership and scientific collaborative relationships in constituting the disciplinary specialization between countries and its research performance. Authorship order provides critical information for the allocation of reward, while collaboration enables researchers to expand the network of co-authors, institutions, and countries involved in the research. Along with these factors, a country’s profile orientation within the global scientific market become of great importance to the development of countries. As bibliographic data embedded such important information about the changes in the position of authors in the byline of publications and the disciplines involved in the research, we analyze these changes over time—using a Web of Science dataset—to explore the extent to which collaboration relationships impact leadership and specialization on the scientific workforce. Using this data, we discern the importance of domestic and international outputs in determining the disciplinary structure in scientific relationships in terms of publications and citations. We found that different types of leadership translate in different results in terms of relative specialization and citations. Overall results show that non-leading internationally collaborative papers reach higher values than leading international and domestic papers especially remarkable in terms of citations. Although in general, all regions increase their performance when collaborating with leading partners, the largest differences in research performance by leadership are located in countries with the lowest investment in R&D. Countries with the highest research investment are more likely to serve as leaders and garner higher specialization and citations when they lead (domestic and lead authorship). Comparative analyses of the role of specialization between countries can be useful for informing policies and motivating further collaboration relationships in the definitions of research agendas. Show less
This article presents an exploratory analysis of which disciplines acknowledge more financial support (through funding acknowledgments - FA) and those whose publications attract more attention on... Show moreThis article presents an exploratory analysis of which disciplines acknowledge more financial support (through funding acknowledgments - FA) and those whose publications attract more attention on Twitter. We argue that such combined approach can provide interesting information for both funding bodies and policy makers about how funding activities and the attention in social media of scientific research relate to each other. Show less
Martín-Martín, A.; Costas, R.; Leeuwen, T. van; Delgado López-Cózar, E. 2018
The current ways in which documents are made freely accessible in the Web no longer adhere to the models established Budapest/Bethesda/Berlin (BBB) definitions of Open Access (OA). Since those... Show moreThe current ways in which documents are made freely accessible in the Web no longer adhere to the models established Budapest/Bethesda/Berlin (BBB) definitions of Open Access (OA). Since those definitions were established, OA-related terminology has expanded, trying to keep up with all the variants of OA publishing that are out there. However, the inconsistent and arbitrary terminology that is being used to refer to these variants are complicating communication about OA-related issues. This study intends to initiate a discussion on this issue, by proposing a conceptual model of OA. Our model features six different dimensions (authoritativeness, user rights, stability, immediacy, peer-review, and cost). Each dimension allows for a range of different options. We believe that by combining the options in these six dimensions, we can arrive at all the current variants of OA, while avoiding ambiguous and/or arbitrary terminology. This model can be an useful tool for funders and policy makers who need to decide exactly which aspects of OA are necessary for each specific scenario. Show less
The field of altmetrics has grown impressively since its inception in 2010 with the Altmetrics Manifesto (Priem, Taraborelli, Groth, & Neylon, 2010). We now have regular altmetric conferences... Show moreThe field of altmetrics has grown impressively since its inception in 2010 with the Altmetrics Manifesto (Priem, Taraborelli, Groth, & Neylon, 2010). We now have regular altmetric conferences where academic and commercial data analysts and providers meet. A number of non-profit and for-profit platforms provide altmetric data and summarize these data in visually appealing presentations. This growth of altmetrics is partly fueled by the problems encountered in both peer review and indicator-based assessments of scientific activities, and also by the easy availability of novel types of digital data on publication and communication behavior of researchers and scholars. In this paper, we review and reflect on the state of the art with respect to these new altmetric data and indicators in the context of the evaluation of scientific and scholarly performance. Show less
