Does Facebook Post Contribute to Citation Count?: An Analysis of World’s Most Influential Scientific Articles - 2014

S Ravikmar, I. L. Myrdon

Abstract


Due to the increasing amount of scientific work and the typical delays in publication, assessing the impact of scholarly work is a huge challenge. The goal of this paper is to find out the association between Facebook and citation pattern for scholarly articles. The study was carried out to analyze the most prolific authors of 2014 from the document World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds 2014 from four subject domains Clinical Medicine, Microbiology, Molecular Biology and Neuroscience, and around 4886 papers and 719 most prolific authors were identified and their facebook and citation count studied. From the study, it was found out that articles of the most prolific authors have a strong correlation with citation whereas the association between the number of articles published by these prolific authors and the number of Facebook count they have received are not dependent on each other.


Keywords


Altmetric, Facebook, Citation, Correlation, Social networking

Full Text:

PDF

References


Baek K, Holton A, Harp D et al. The links that bind: Uncovering novel motivations for linking on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 2011; 27: 2243-48.

Craig ID, Plume AM, McVeigh ME et al. Do open access articles have greater citation impact? Journal of Informetrics 2007; 1(3): 239-48.

Cronin B, Sugimoto CR (ed.). Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact. Cambridge/London: MIT Press 2014.

Davis PM, Walters WH. The impact of free access to the scientific literature: A review of recent research. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2011; 99(3): 208-17.

Gargouri Y, Hajjem C, Larivière V et al. Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PLoS ONE 2010; 5(10): art. no. e13636.

Harnad S, Brody T. Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals. D-Lib Magazine 2004; 10(6). Access date 08.02.2016; available at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june04/harnad/06harnad.htm.

Haustein S, Peters I, Thelwall M. Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2014; 65(4): 65669.

Holmberg KJ. Altmetrics for Information Professionals: Past, Present, and Future. Massachusetts: Elsevier Science & Technology 2015.

Kurtz M, Eichhorn G, Accomazzi A et al. The effect of use and access on citations. Information Processing & Management 2005; 41(6): 1395-1402.

Lally E. A researcher’s perspective on electronic scholarly communication. Online Information Review 2001; 25(2): 80-87.

Lawrence S. Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature 2001; 411(6837): 521.

Li X, Thelwall M. F1000, Mendeley and Traditional Bibliometric Indicators. In E. Archambault, Y. Gingras, V. Lariviere (Eds.)17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. Montreal, Canada: Science-Metrix and OST. 2012; 3: 1-11.

Lipsey MW, Puzio K, Yun C et al. Translating the statistical representation of the effects of educational interventions into more readily interpretable forms. Washington, DC: US Dept of Education, National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, NCSER 2013-3000. 2012.

Mohammadi E, Thelwall M. Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels. Scientometrics 2013; 97(2), 383-95.

Mohammadi E, Thelwall M. Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2014; 65(8): 1627-38.

Murthy D. Twitter: Social Communication in the Twitter

Age. Cambridge: Polity Press 2013. 17. Poplašen LM, Grgić IH. Altmetric and Bibliometric Scores : Does Open Access, 2016; 451-60.

Priem J, Piwowar HA, Hemminger BM. Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. 2012. arXiv:1203.4745 ResearchGate. (2014). RG score FAQ – ResearchGatehttps://www.researchgate.net/ publicprofile.RGScoreFAQ.html

Priem J, Hemminger BH. Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday 2010; 15(7).

Ringelhan S, Wollersheim J, Welpe IM. I Like, I Cite ? Do Facebook Likes Predict the Impact of Scientific Work ? 2015: 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0134389.vvv

Shuai X, Pepe A, Bollen J. How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: Article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citations. PLoS One 2012; 7(11).

Tague-Sutcliffe J. An introduction to informetrics. Information Processing and Management 1992; 28(1): 1-3.

Thelwall M, Haustein S, Larivière V et al. Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLOS ONE 2013; 8: e64841. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0064841 PMID: 23724101

The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds. 2014.

Raan V. Advanced bibliometric methods as the quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises, Scientometrics 1996; 36(3): 397-420.

Zahedi Z, Costas R, Wouters P. How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics 2014; 1-23. doi:10.1007/s11192-0141264-0.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.