Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.12052153 = product of:
  0.24104306 = sum of:
    0.24104306 = sum of:
      0.20627843 = weight(_text_:media in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20627843 = score(doc=2598,freq=22.0), product of:
          0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051318336 = queryNorm
          0.8581759 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
            4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
              22.0 = termFreq=22.0
            4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.03476463 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03476463 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17970806 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051318336 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the disciplinary orientation of scientific publications that were mentioned on different social media platforms, focussing on their differences and similarities with citation counts. Design/methodology/approach - Social media metrics and readership counts, associated with 500,216 publications and their citation data from the Web of Science database, were collected from Altmetric.com and Mendeley. Results are presented through descriptive statistical analyses together with science maps generated with VOSviewer. Findings - The results confirm Mendeley as the most prevalent social media source with similar characteristics to citations in their distribution across fields and their density in average values per publication. The humanities, natural sciences, and engineering disciplines have a much lower presence of social media metrics. Twitter has a stronger focus on general medicine and social sciences. Other sources (blog, Facebook, Google+, and news media mentions) are more prominent in regards to multidisciplinary journals. Originality/value - This paper reinforces the relevance of Mendeley as a social media source for analytical purposes from a disciplinary perspective, being particularly relevant for the social sciences (together with Twitter). Key implications for the use of social media metrics on the evaluation of research performance (e.g. the concentration of some social media metrics, such as blogs, news items, etc., around multidisciplinary journals) are identified.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Footnote

Teil eines Special Issue: Social Media Metrics in Scholarly Communication: exploring tweets, blogs, likes and other altmetrics.

0.04664647 = product of:
  0.09329294 = sum of:
    0.09329294 = product of:
      0.18658587 = sum of:
        0.18658587 = weight(_text_:media in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18658587 = score(doc=215,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.7762493 = fieldWeight in 215, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Social media metrics have a genuine networked nature, reflecting the networking characteristics of the social media platform from where they are derived. This networked nature has been relatively less explored in the literature on altmetrics, although new network-level approaches are starting to appear. A general conceptualization of the role of social media networks in science communication, and particularly of social media as a specific type of interface between science and society, is still missing. The aim of this paper is to provide a conceptual framework for appraising interactions between science and society in multiple directions, in what we call heterogeneous couplings. Heterogeneous couplings are conceptualized as the co-occurrence of science and non-science objects, actors, and interactions in online media environments. This conceptualization provides a common framework to study the interactions between science and non-science actors as captured via online and social media platforms. The conceptualization of heterogeneous couplings opens wider opportunities for the development of network applications and analyses of the interactions between societal and scholarly entities in social media environments, paving the way toward more advanced forms of altmetrics, social (media) studies of science, and the conceptualization and operationalization of more advanced science-society studies.

0.015548823 = product of:
  0.031097647 = sum of:
    0.031097647 = product of:
      0.062195294 = sum of:
        0.062195294 = weight(_text_:media in 2214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062195294 = score(doc=2214,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 2214, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2214)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An extensive analysis of the presence of different altmetric indicators provided by Altmetric.com across scientific fields is presented, particularly focusing on their relationship with citations. Our results confirm that the presence and density of social media altmetric counts are still very low and not very frequent among scientific publications, with 15%-24% of the publications presenting some altmetric activity and concentrated on the most recent publications, although their presence is increasing over time. Publications from the social sciences, humanities, and the medical and life sciences show the highest presence of altmetrics, indicating their potential value and interest for these fields. The analysis of the relationships between altmetrics and citations confirms previous claims of positive correlations but is relatively weak, thus supporting the idea that altmetrics do not reflect the same kind of impact as citations. Also, altmetric counts do not always present a better filtering of highly-cited publications than journal citation scores. Altmetric scores (particularly mentions in blogs) are able to identify highly-cited publications with higher levels of precision than journal citation scores (JCS), but they have a lower level of recall. The value of altmetrics as a complementary tool of citation analysis is highlighted, although more research is suggested to disentangle the potential meaning and value of altmetric indicators for research evaluation.

0.008691157 = product of:
  0.017382314 = sum of:
    0.017382314 = product of:
      0.03476463 = sum of:
        0.03476463 = weight(_text_:22 in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03476463 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17970806 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:02:48

0.006952926 = product of:
  0.013905852 = sum of:
    0.013905852 = product of:
      0.027811704 = sum of:
        0.027811704 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027811704 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17970806 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22