Abstract
Background: E-visibility embodies the online presence of a researcher and their research, the researcher’s discoverability, and the accessibility of the research. Academic social networking tools (ASNT) enable the creation of altmetrics for research within these academic online research communities.
Objectives: This article reports on the correlations between e-visibility and altmetric-bibliometric indicators on ASNTs (Academia.edu and ResearchGate) for the Environmental Sciences researchers at the University of South Africa.
Method: Altmetric and bibliometric indicators were collected from the ASNTs (Academia.edu and ResearchGate) and bibliometric data from the traditional citation resources (Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar), as part of a longitudinal study exploring research e-visibility and altmetric-bibliometric trends. Statistical analysis (using Spearman’s rank coefficient) was conducted on the altmetric and bibliometric data to identify the altmetric-bibliometric correlations.
Results: The altmetric-bibliometric spearman correlation results show positive correlations that translates to increases in bibliometrics and altmetrics on ASNTs and citation resources.
Conclusion: This study is significant as it concludes that altmetric-bibliometric indicators correlate positively and translate to the increase in research e-visibility and it allows for the enhancement of research and societal impact for environmental researchers within a South African context.
Contribution: The findings of this study are beneficial to all researchers aiming at increasing their citation counts and enhancing their research- and societal impact. The main contribution of the study is the identification of altmetric-bibliometric correlations. Recommendations for researchers include well-maintained research profiles on ASNTs and citation resources for the increase of research e-visibility and the enhancement of research and societal impact.
Keywords: e-visibility; altmetrics; bibliometrics; altmetric-bibliometric correlations; academic social networking tools; ResearchGate; Academia.edu; Web of Science; Scopus; Google Scholar.
Introduction
Online research communities have become communication intermediaries creating efficient and effective knowledge-sharing channels, which in turn facilitate research e-visibility. The incorporation of Academic Social Networking Tools (ASNTs) into academia as online research communities has allowed the emergence of enhanced research activities in the research processes of researchers, including open publishing, evaluation of resources (Adriaanse & Rensleigh 2011), and collaboration (Taraborelli 2008). The social networking tools used by the researchers promote online Web activity and adapt to the research needs of researchers (Arda 2012; Mangan 2012). The researcher’s profiles on these ASNTs reinforce the online research presence, which additionally enhances the concept of research e-visibility.
Furthermore, the research profiles on ASNTs act as the intermediaries for gathering of the bibliometric (citation data) and altmetrics (attention data). Bibliometrics are deemed necessary research metrics for the research performance measurement of researchers (Taylor 2013). Altmetrics have become instrumental to the societal impact measurement of a researcher, in an attempt to measure the reach of the attention research output is receiving in society and is used as a possible predictive indicator of citation trends and behaviour introducing additional performance measurement. Altmetrics propose to complement and supplement the limited usage of bibliometrics as research metrics for researcher performance measurement (Taylor 2013).
The premise is that there is a correlation between researcher e-visibility (online presence, discoverability of researchers and research output accessibility) and altmetric-bibliometric indicators. Discoverable and accessible research output becomes more retrievable, increasing the chances of being downloaded, utilised and cited. Equally, research output receiving attention in non-traditional research communities such as ASNTs increases the researcher’s societal impact, and the associated attention leads to increased potential citation generation from previously unchartered research environments.
This article aims to highlight the e-visibility and the altmetric-bibliometric indicators statistical correlation, obtained from ASNTs, Academia.edu and ResearchGate, and the citation resources, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar, for the Environmental Sciences researchers at the University of South Africa. The key contribution of this article is the statistically significant relationships between the bibliometrics and altmetrics of the participating researchers in the attempt to understand the effect of altmetrics as a measure of societal impact on the research metrics of researchers. Furthermore, the opportunity for identification of the most effective ASNTs in increasing the research e-visibility of researchers with citation performance and increasing research and societal impact.
Literature review
Research e-visibility
Research e-visibility, as a concept incorporates themes such as the researcher’s online presence, the research output of the researcher, the researcher’s discoverability and accessibility of the researcher’s research output (Adriaanse & Rensleigh 2017a). The researcher’s online presence is encapsulated in the inclusive research profile with accurate, relevant, and related information about the researcher for wider online audiences (Ale-Ebrahim et al. 2013; Arda 2012; Chung & Park 2012; Hoffman, Lutz & Meckel 2014). These online research profiles allow for increased research discoverability and research output accessibility with increased downloads (Ale-Ebrahim et al. 2013; Norman 2012), where researcher discoverability translates to the relative ease at which other researchers can discover a researcher and their research via the various online platforms (Norman 2012). Research accessibility implies that research output available online on these platforms, allows for increased retrievability and downloadability for citing and translates to research being accessible (Czerniewicz & Wiens 2013; Norman 2012). Enhancing e-visibility for a researcher includes actively increasing and managing an online research identity via academic and research platforms. In addition, the increased citation counts attribute to higher research performance for the researcher and increased research impact on the field of study.
E-visibility and research impact measurement
The conventional research evaluations and research performance measurement exercises in academia have utilised the bibliometric indicators including citation counts and related bibliometrics of researchers to ascertain their research impact (Bornmann 2014a, 2014b; Hoffman et al. 2014; Naude, Rensleigh & Du Toit 2005; Roemer & Borchardt 2012). In terms of research e-visibility, more citations are generated by a researcher’s research output when they are more discoverable, allowing for increased accessibility and downloadability. In turn, an increased citation count translates to enhanced research performance of a researcher and increased research impact for the academic discipline (Bornmann et al. 2016).
The introduction of ASNTs permeating research processes, brought new possibilities and variations to the research workflow, which include discovery, communicating, disseminating, and sharing of research. This in turn leads to new dimensions for measuring the scholarly research attention activity such as usage statistics and attention indicators, that is, views, reads, downloads, and the sharing of research output (Boudry & Durand-Barthez 2020; Kim & Abbas 2010). This brought about the realisation of the attention research output was receiving via social networking tools, which became known as altmetrics and were considered an alternative to bibliometrics. However, these are considered as complementary indicators to bibliometrics, allowing for a more inclusive measurement metrics, recording previously invisible impacts for the ascertaining of an inclusive research impact and the research performance for researchers (Kim & Abbas 2010; Konkiel 2013). An increased understanding appropriate to the association of altmetrics with bibliometrics, in the context of research e-visibility, encourages the investigation of the altmetrics-bibliometrics correlation, and redefining the terminology for bibliometrics and altmetrics for the measurement of research impact in academia.
Research has emphasised the evolving relationships between altmetrics and bibliometrics as indicators to measure the research performance of researchers for a more inclusive view of their research impact (Ortega 2015a; Torres-Salinas, Cabezas-Clavijo & Jimenez-Contreras 2013). Investigating research metrics to measure research impact involves unpacking the concepts of altmetrics and bibliometrics to acquire an outline of the nature and role of each research indicator within a research impact context.
The conventional research measurement uses bibliometric indicators to analyse and represent scholarly impact of published research and individual researchers (Bornmann 2014a, 2014b; Roemer & Borchardt 2012). Altmetric (alternative) indicators derived from the ASNTs, which includes views, downloads, readers and tweets, representing attention received by a research output outside of the traditional research environment, allow for the measurement of the societal impact of the research (Caberra, Roy & Chisolm 2017; Haustein & Siebenlist 2011; Hoffman et al. 2014; Kjellberg, Haider & Sundin 2016; Tattersall 2016). It is suggested that the recognition of altmetric indicators for representing a more inclusive view and complementary to the existing bibliometric indicators is gaining ground with a new generation of scientists and researchers seeking measurement of the more complete portrayal of research impact (Yeong & Abdullah 2012).
Relationship between altmetrics and bibliometrics
Previous research shows altmetric–bibliometric indicator relationships with positive correlations between the bibliometrics from Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar, and altmetrics from ResearchGate and Academia.edu. Strong positive correlations for bibliometric indicators were reported for Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar, with altmetric indicators from ResearchGate (Onyancha 2015; Orduña-Malea, Martín-Martín & López-Cózar 2016; Ortega 2015b; Shrivastava & Mahajan 2015), as well as with altmetric indicators from Academia.edu (Li & Thelwall 2012; Ortega 2015b; Thelwall & Kousha 2014).
Research methodology
Research design
This article is part of a larger PhD longitudinal (over a 2-year period) comparative e-visibility study, with the research design including a pragmatic view using a deductive approach, employing mixed methods to answer the research question and sub-questions. It involved micro-bibliometric analysis to establish research e-visibility trends of the Environmental Sciences researchers at the University of South Africa (UNISA). The e-visibility study developed an e-visibility strategy for enhancing e-visibility of the researchers by utilising the three e-visibility indicators: (1) online presence (the online representation of the researchers on the various websites and ASNTs), (2) discoverability (the presence of researcher profiles on the various websites and ASNTs); and (3) accessibility (the total amount of research output per researcher across these websites and ASNTs) (Adriaanse & Rensleigh 2017a).
Research sampling
The study used a non-random convenience sampling method with voluntary participation from 62 researchers (representing an 86.1% response rate) in the School of Environmental Sciences at the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences at UNISA.
Data collection
The data collection as reflected in this article involved gathering the altmetric data from ASNTs (Academia.edu and ResearchGate) and bibliometric data from traditional citation resources (Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar), between December 2014 and December 2016 as depicted in Figure 1. The altmetric-bibliometric indicator data included: name of researcher, total research output per ASNTs and citation resource, number of publications on ASNTs per researcher, number of ResearchGate views per researcher, number of ResearchGate downloads per researcher, number of Academia.edu views per researcher and citation count of researcher.
 |
FIGURE 1: Data collection for the longitudinal e-visibility study. |
|
Data analysis
The altmetric and bibliometric data were statistically analysed to determine altmetric-bibliometric distribution trends via SPSS software, utilising the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (Lilliefors significance correction) normality tests with altmetric–bibliometric relationships determined using Spearman rank correlation. E-visibility indicators (online presence, discoverability, and accessibility) per researcher from each ASNT and citation resources were used to express the e-visibility status of the Environmental Science researchers (Adriaanse & Rensleigh 2017a, 2020).
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of Johannesburg, College of Business & Economics Ethics Committee (No. IKM2018_017).
Results and discussion
Bibliometric and altmetric indicators from 2014 to 2016
The results indicate an increase in bibliometrics (citations) for researchers across all three citation resources (Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar) as seen in Table 1 (Figure 2), with the highest increase in total number of citations, 170% for Google Scholar followed by Scopus with 99% and Web of Science with 69%.
 |
FIGURE 2: Bibliometrics from citation resources: Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. |
|
| TABLE 1: Bibliometrics from citation resources: Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. |
In addition, the results show an increase in altmetrics across the ASNTs as seen in Table 2 (Figure 3). The highest increase in total number, 73% was recorded for Academia.edu. The increases in altmetrics for ResearchGate varied from 67% for downloads between December 2014 and July 2015, 54% for ResearchGate reads between December 2015 and December 2016, and 48% for views between December 2014 and July 2015.
 |
FIGURE 3: Altmetrics from academic social networking tools: Academia.edu and ResearchGate. |
|
| TABLE 2: Altmetrics from academic social networking tools: Academia.edu and ResearchGate. |
Research e-visibility indicators: Online presence, discoverability, and accessibility
The largest increase for the online presence indicator was reflected by ResearchGate (27%) and Academia.edu (13%) representing the ASNTs, as seen in Table 3. The largest increase reported for the discoverability indicator was on the citation resource Google Scholar (35%), followed by Web of Science (34%) followed by the ASNTs ResearchGate (25%) and Academia.edu (21%), as seen in Table 4.
| TABLE 3: Distribution for research e-visibility indicator: Online presence. |
| TABLE 4: Distribution for research e-visibility indicator: Discoverability. |
The largest increase for the indicator accessibility was reported on the ASNT Academia.edu (20%), closely followed by the citation resource Web of Science (19%), as seen in Table 5.
| TABLE 5: Distribution for research e-visibility indicator: Accessibility. |
In general, research e-visibility on the ASNTs reflected a larger increase when compared with the citation resources during 2014 to 2016 as seen in Figure 4.
 |
FIGURE 4: Change in research e-visibility indicators from 2014 to 2016. |
|
Altmetrics-bibliometrics correlations from 2014 to 2016
Table 6 shows the statistical correlations between the altmetrics, from the ASNTs: Academia.edu and ResearchGate, and the bibliometrics, from the citation resources: Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, as represented by the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. The correlations for the ResearchGate altmetrics and the three citation resources citations between 2014 and 2016 show an overall strong positive correlation. In addition, the correlations for the Academia.edu altmetrics and the three citation resources citations show overall positive (but weaker) correlations between December 2014 and December 2016.
| TABLE 6: Correlation analysis of the Spearman rank values for altmetric and bibliometric indicators. |
Pertaining to the e-visibility themes online presence, discoverability and accessibility, the ASNTs represented the largest research online presence distribution. The largest researcher discoverability distribution was reflected on the citation resources. The largest research output accessibility was reflected on the ASNTs. Pertaining to the distribution of bibliometric and altmetric indicators, the results clearly indicate an increase in total bibliometrics and altmetrics across the three ASNTs between December 2014 and December 2016.
The strong altmetric-bibliometric Spearman rank correlations reported for the altmetric indicators from ResearchGate and the bibliometrics from Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar advocate that altmetrics from ResearchGate have a strong positive relationship with the corresponding bibliometrics. The results therefore concur with the previous studies by Onyancha (2015), Orduña-Malea et al. (2016), Martín-Martín et al. (2016), Thelwall et al. (2013), Thelwall and Kousha (2017) on ResearchGate altmetric-bibliometric correlations from Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar, which reported medium to strong positive correlations and subsequently support the results from this study. The results obtained by the studies by Ortega (2015b) and Thelwall and Kousha (2014), found a weaker Spearman correlation below r = ± 0.2 (significance not listed), which contrasts with the stronger correlations for the Academia.edu correlation results found in this study.
The bibliometric indicators (collected from the citation resources Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar) represent the traditional research impact of the researchers, and the total number of altmetric indicators (collected from the ASNTs Academia.edu and ResearchGate) represents the societal and research impact of the researchers. The postulation is therefore that the combination of the total increases in the traditional research impact and the societal impact, combined with the positive altmetric-bibliometric correlations enhances the e-visibility of the participating researchers.
Conclusion
According to Thelwall et al. (2013), the determined correlations between altmetrics and bibliometrics point towards the assumption of relationships between altmetrics and bibliometrics and the influence on each other. The resulting correlations between altmetrics and bibliometrics indicators as shown in this study are supported by the findings of previous studies where strong positive Pearson and Spearman correlations are recorded, for the ASNTs and the citation resources Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Given the above it can therefore be suggested that the altmetrics from Academia.edu and ResearchGate have a possible influence on citations. The bibliometric trends indicating increases in altmetric and bibliometric indicators after participating researchers were introduced to research e-visibility initiatives, together with the positive correlations reflected in altmetrics and the bibliometrics, suggest an increase in research impact and societal impact.
The significant contribution of the e-visibility study lies in highlighting the relationship between increased research e-visibility via the online existence of research profiles on ASNTs, such as ResearchGate and Academic.edu, contributing to the researchers’ increased research and societal impact. Centred on the premise that increased e-visibility exerts influence on the citation performances of researchers and hence promotes increased research and societal impact, the altmetric-bibliometric indicator results were used to identify which ASNTs were recommended for maximising the citation counts of researchers. The study recommends researchers actively create and maintain a research presence on ResearchGate and Academica.edu.
Limitations
This study reported the altmetric-bibliometric correlations of researchers within the Environmental Sciences discipline at Unisa and the findings therefore cannot directly be generalised to researchers in all other disciplines and all other universities within South Africa and internationally. The recommendations serve as a guide on the creation and maintenance of research profiles on ASNTs for increased e-visibility to enhance citation counts and the research and societal impact of the researchers.
Future research
Based on the results, conclusions, limitations of the study, and literature discussed, there is scope for future research on the cross-altmetric relationships between the various altmetric indicators to establish cross-altmetric correlations for researchers in other disciplines.
Acknowledgements
This research article is a part of a PhD study undertaken by L.A. entitled ‘E-visibility of Environmental Sciences researchers at the University of South Africa’, toward the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Information Management, at the University of Johannesburg, supervised by C.R. and C.J.P.N. in the Department of Information and Knowledge Management. It is available at https://hdl.handle.net/10210/402648.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Authors’ contributions
L.A. contributed towards the data collection and wrote up the research. C.J.P.N. contributed towards the conceptualisation, validation, writing and supervised the research. C.R. contributed towards the conceputalisation, methodology, validation, writing and supervised the research.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. The Department of Information and Knowledge Management, however, funded the publication of this research article.
Data availability
Data that support the findings of this research are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author, C.J.P.N.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Adriaanse, L.S. & Rensleigh, C., 2011, ‘Content versus quality: A Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar comparison’, in 13th Annual Conference on World Wide Web Applications Proceedings, Johannesburg, September 14–16, viewed 23 September 2023, from https://hdl.handle.net/10210/8191.
Adriaanse, L.S. & Rensleigh, C., 2017a, ‘E-visibility to enhance knowledge sharing’, in 5th International Conference on Managing Organisations in Africa (ARG2017) Proceedings, University of Mauritius, August 29–31, viewed 23 September 2023, from https://hdl.handle.net/10210/260104.
Adriaanse, L.S. & Rensleigh, C., 2017b, ‘E-visibility of environmental science researchers at the University of South Africa’, South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science 83(2), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.7553/83-2-1636
Adriaanse, L.S. & Rensleigh, C., 2020, ‘Enhancing the e-visibility status of environmental science researchers at the University of South Africa’, in 21st European Conference on Knowledge Management, ECKM (2020) Proceedings, Coventry, December 02–03, viewed 23 September 2023, from http://hdl.handle.net/10210/463744.
Ale-Ebrahim, N., Salehi, H., Embi, M.A., Tanha, F.H., Gholizadeh, H., Motahar, S.M. et al., 2013, ‘Effective strategies for increasing citation frequency’, International Educational Studies 6(11), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n11p93
Arda, Z., 2012, ‘Academicians on online social networks: Visibility of academic research and amplification of audience’, Estudios sobre el mensaje periodístico 18, 67–75. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_ESMP.2012.v18.40888
Bornmann, L., 2014a, ‘Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics’, Journal of Informetrics 8(4), 895–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.005
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.007
Bornmann, L., Thor, A., Marx, W. & Schier, H., 2016, ‘The application of bibliometrics to research evaluation in the humanities and social sciences: An exploratory study using normalized Google Scholar data for the publications of a research institute’, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67(11), 2778–2789. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23627
Boudry, C. & Durand-Barthez, M., 2020, ‘Use of author identifier services (ORCID, ResearcherID) and academic social networks (Academia.edu, ResearchGate) by the researchers of the University of CAEN Normandy (France): A case study’, PLoS One 15(9), e0238583. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238583
Caberra, D., Roy, D. & Chisolm, M.S., 2017, ‘Social media scholarship and alternative metrics for academic promotion and tenure’, Journal of the American College of Radiology 15(1), 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.09.012
Chung, C. & Park, H., 2012, ‘Web visibility of scholars in media and communication journals’, Scientometrics 93(1), 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0707-8
Czerniewicz, L. & Wiens, K., 2013, ‘The online visibility of South African knowledge: Searching for poverty alleviation: Building the information society’, The African Journal of Information and Communication (13), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.23962/10539/19274
Haustein, S. & Siebenlist, T., 2011, ‘Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage’, Journal of Informetrics 5(3), 446–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.04.002
Hoffman, C.P., Lutz, C. & Meckel, M., 2014, ‘Impact factor 2.0: Applying social network analysis to scientific impact assessment’, in R.H. Sprague (Jr) (ed.), 47th Hawaii International Conferen ce on Systems Science Proceedings, IEEE Computer Society, Waikoloa, HI, January 06–09, pp. 1576–1585.
Kim, Y. & Abbas, J., 2010, ‘Adoption of Library 2.0 functionalities by academic libraries and users: A knowledge management perspective’, The Journal of Academic Librarianship 36(3), 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2010.03.003
Kjellberg, S., Haider, J. & Sundin, O., 2016, ‘Researchers’ use of social network sites: A scoping review’, Library and Information Sciences Research 38(1), 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2016.08.008
Konkiel, S., 2013, ‘Altmetrics: A 21st century solution to determining research quality’, Online Searcher 37(4), 1–5.
Li, X. & Thelwall, M., 2012, ‘F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators’, in 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators Proceedings, Montreal, September 05–08, viewed 23 September 2023, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mike_Thelwall/publication/236001315_F1000_Mendeley_and_traditional_bibliometric_indicators/links/02e7e5183d3452ff86000000.pdf.
Mangan, K., 2012, ‘Social networks for academics proliferate, despite some scholars’ doubts’, Chronicle for Higher Education 58(35), 1–7.
Martín-Martín, A., Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllón, J.M. & López-Cózar, E.D., 2016, ‘The counting house: Measuring those who count. Presence of bibliometrics, scientometrics, informetrics, webometrics and altmetrics in Google Scholar citations, ResearchGate, Mendeley and Twitter’, EC3 Working Papers, 21, ArXiv:1602.02412, pp. 1–60, viewed 23 September 2023, from http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.02412.
Naude, F., Rensleigh, C. & Du Toit, A.S.A., 2005, ‘Analysis of the citation od web-based information resources by UNISA academic researchers’, South African Journal of Information Management 7(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v7i3.272
Norman, E., 2012, ‘Maximizing journal article citation online: Readers, robots, and research visibility’, Politics & Policy 40(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00342.x/full
Onyancha, O., 2015, ‘Social media and research: An assessment of the coverage of South African universities in ResearchGate, Web of Science and the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities’, South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science 81(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.7553/81-1-1540
Orduña-Malea, E., Martín-Martín, A. & López-Cózar, E.D., 2016, ‘The next bibliometrics: Almetrics (author level metrics) and the multilevel faces of author impact’, El Profesional de la Informacion 25(3), 485–496. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2016.may.18
Ortega, J.L., 2015a, ‘Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites’, Online Information Review 39(4), 520–536. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-03-2015-0093
Ortega, J.L., 2015b, ‘Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC’s members’, Journal of Informetrics 9(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.004
Roemer, R.C. & Borchardt, R., 2012, ‘From bibliometrics to altmetrics: A changing scholarly landscape’, College & Research Libraries News 73(10), 596–600. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.73.10.8846
Shrivastava, R. & Mahajan, P., 2015, ‘Relationship amongst ResearchGate altmetric indicators and Scopus bibliometric indicators’, New Library World 116(9/10), 564–577. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-03-2015-0017
Taraborelli, D., 2008, ‘Soft peer review: Social software and distributed scientific evaluation’, in P. Hassanaly, A. Ramrajsingh, D. Randall, P. Salembier & M. Tixier (eds.), 8th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (COOP ’08) Proceedings, Inst. d’Etudes Politiques d’Aix-en-Provence, Marseille, June 30, pp. 1–12.
Tattersall, A., 2016, Altmetrics: A practical guide for librarians, researchers and academics, Facet, London.
Taylor, M., 2013, ‘The challenges of measuring social impact using altmetrics’, Research Trends 33(1), 11–15, viewed 23 September 2023, from https://www.researchtrends.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1229&context=researchtrends.
Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V. & Sugimoto, C.R., 2013, ‘Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services’, PLoS One 8(5), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064841
Thelwall, M. & Kousha, K., 2014, ‘Academia.edu: Social network or academic network?’, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65(4), 721–731. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23038/full
Thelwall, M. & Kousha, K., 2017, ‘ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size, and impact’, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68(2), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23675
Torres-Salinas, D., Cabezas-Clavijo, A. & Jimenez-Contreras, E., 2013, ‘Altmetrics: New indicators for scientific communication in Web 2.0’, ArXiv 1306(6595), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3916/C41-2013-05
Yeong, C.H. & Abdullah, B.J.J., 2012, ‘Altmetrics: The right step forward’, Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal 8(3), 1–2.
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
