首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology >Do 'Altmetrics' Correlate With Citations? Extensive Comparison of Altmetric Indicators With Citations From a Multidisciplinary Perspective
【24h】

Do 'Altmetrics' Correlate With Citations? Extensive Comparison of Altmetric Indicators With Citations From a Multidisciplinary Perspective

机译:“测度”与引文是否相关?多学科视角下高度计量指标与引文的广泛比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

An extensive analysis of the presence of different alt-metric 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.
机译:提出了对整个科学领域中Altmetric.com提供的不同alt-metric指标的存在的广泛分析,尤其着重于它们与引文的关系。我们的结果证实,社交媒体海拔高度计数的存在和密度仍然很低,在科学出版物中也不是很频繁,其中15%-24%的出版物呈现出海拔高度活动并集中在最新出版物上,尽管它们的存在是随着时间增加。社会科学,人文科学,医学和生命科学领域的出版物显示了高度测量的最高存在,表明它们在这些领域的潜在价值和兴趣。对高度度量与引文之间关系的分析证实了以前的正相关性主张,但相对较弱,因此支持了高度度量不反映与引用相同类型影响的观点。同样,高度计计数并不总是比期刊引文分数更好地过滤高被引用的出版物。测高分数(尤其是博客中提到的分数)能够识别出比期刊引文分数(JCS)更高的准确性的高度被引用的出版物,但其召回率较低。尽管提出了更多的研究来阐明测高指标在研究评估中的潜在含义和价值,但仍强调了测高作为引文分析的补充工具的价值。

著录项

  • 来源
  • 作者单位

    Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Leiden University, PO Box 905, 2300 AX, Leiden, The Netherlands;

    Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Leiden University, PO Box 905, 2300 AX, Leiden, The Netherlands;

    Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Leiden University, PO Box 905, 2300 AX, Leiden, The Netherlands;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号