research-article

Citations Gone #Social: : Examining the Effect of Altmetrics on Citations and Readership in Communication Research

Author: Ben WasikeAuthors Info & Claims

Social Science Computer Review, Volume 39, Issue 3

Pages 416 - 433

https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319873563

Published: 01 June 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Altmetrics are a relatively new phenomenon in research. These metrics measure the attention that research articles receive from nontraditional venues such as social media and the Internet. This study examined how these metrics affect both the readership and citation of articles in communication research. The study examined citation data alongside altmetrics data from academic social networking sites ResearchGate and Mendeley, as well as mentions on Facebook, Twitter, and Google+. Results indicated that all altmetrics positively correlated with citation. Posting articles on sites such as ResearchGate and Mendeley not only impacted readership, it increased the likelihood of citation. Other variables that improved readership and citation were social media mentions, downloadable articles, coauthorship, and an active online presence among scholars.

References

[1]

Adler N. J. and Harzing A. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 72–95. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2009.37012181

[2]

Altmetric.com. (2016, November 24). How is the altmetric attention score calculated? Retrieved from https://help.altmetric.com/support/solutions/articles/6000060969-how-is-the-altmetric-score-calculated-

[3]

Altmetric.org. (n.d.). What are altmetrics? Capturing the online attention surrounding scholarly content. Retrieved from https://www.altmetric.com/about-altmetrics/what-are-altmetrics/

[4]

Antell K., Foote J., and Foote J. (2016). Scholarly publishing’s evolving landscape: Impact metrics, electronic-only journals, and open access in journalism and communication research. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 71, 309–328. doi:10.1177/1077695816668864

[5]

Antonakis J., Bastardoz N., Liu Y., and Schriesheim C. A. (2014). What makes articles highly cited? The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 152–179. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.014

[6]

Bajwa N. H. and König C. J. (2019). How much is research in the top journals of industrial/organizational psychology dominated by authors from the U.S.? Scientometrics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03180-2

[7]

Blackman L. (2016). Social media and the politics of small data: Post publication peer review and academic value. Theory, Culture & Society, 33, 3–26. doi:10.1177/0263276415590002

[8]

Bland J. M., Altman D. G., and Rohlf F. J. (2013). In defence of logarithmic transformations. Statistics in Medicine, 32, 3766–3768. doi:10.1002/sim.5772

[9]

Borgman C. L. (1989). Bibliometrics and scholarly communication. Communication Research, 16, 583. doi:10.1002/aris.1440360102

[10]

Boyd D. M. and Ellison N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

Digital Library

[11]

Brandon K. P., Midway S. R., Sackett S., Lynch A., and Cooney P. B. (2016). Twitter predicts citation rates of ecological research. PLoS One, 11, e0166570. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166570

[12]

Casson R. J. and Al-Qureshi S. H. (2010). Scientific information, journal impact factors and editorial policy: Editorial. Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology, 38, 655–656. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9071.2010.02395.x

[13]

Chul-joo L. and Dongyoung S. (2016). Mapping the social capital research in communication: A bibliometric analysis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93, 728–749. doi:10.1177/1077699015610074

[14]

Cohn E. G., Farrington D. P., and Iratzoqui A. (2017). Changes in the most-cited scholars and works over 25 years: The evolution of the field of criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 28, 25–51. doi:10.1080/10511253.2016.1153686

[15]

Correia A., Cassola F., Azevedo D., Pinheiro A., Morgado L., and Martins P.…Paredes H. (2014). Meta-theoretic assumptions and bibliometric evidence assessment on 3-D virtual worlds as collaborative learning ecosystems. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 7, 1–18. doi:10.4101/jvwr.v7i3.7036

[16]

Dobbs D. (2013, April). When the rebel alliance sells out. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/when-the-rebel-alliance-sells-out

[17]

Dowling G. R. (2014). Playing the citations game: From publish or perish to be cited or sidelined. Australasian Marketing Journal, 22, 280–287. doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2014.09.005

[18]

Ebrahimy S., Mehrad J., Setareh F., and Hosseinchari M. (2016). Path analysis of the relationship between visibility and citation: The mediating roles of save, discussion, and recommendation metrics. Scientometrics, 109, 1497–1510. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2130-z

Digital Library

[19]

Elsevier. (2017a). Article sharing. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/sharing

[20]

Elsevier. (2017b). Get noticed. Increase the impact of your research. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/authors/journal-authors/submit-your-paper/sharing-and-promoting-your-article

[21]

Elsevier. (2017c). Sharing and promoting your article. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/authors/journal-authors/submit-your-paper/sharing-and-promoting-your-article

[22]

Ferris F. L., Miller K. M., Glassman A. R., and Beck R. W., & Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network. (2010). A proposed method of logarithmic transformation of optical coherence tomography data for use in clinical research. Ophthalmology, 117, 1512–1516. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.12.014

[23]

Garfield E. and Malin M. V. (1968). Can Nobel Prize winners be predicted? Paper presented at 135th Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dallas, TX.

[24]

Gingras Y. and Wallace M. L. (2010). Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: A bibliometric analysis of nominees and winners of the chemistry and physics prizes (1901–2007). Scientometrics, 82, 401–412. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0035-9

[25]

Google Scholar. (2017). Google Scholar metrics. Google. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/metrics.html#metrics

[26]

Guo F., Ye G., Hudders L., Lv W., Li M., and Duffy V. (2019). Product placement in mass media: a review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of Advertising, 48, 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2019.1567409

[27]

Hall N. (2014). The Kardashian index: A measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Genome Biology, 15, 424–436. doi:10.1186/s13059-014-0424-0

[28]

Han Z., Aung H. H., Erdt M., Tai-Quan P., Raamkumar A., and Yin-Leng T. (2019). Social media presence of scholarly journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70, 256–270. doi:10.1002/asi.24124

[29]

Harker J. and Saffer A. (2018). Mapping a subfield’s sociology of science: A 25-year network and bibliometric analysis of the knowledge construction of sports crisis communication. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 42, 369–392. doi:10.1177/0193723518790011

[30]

Henning V. (2008). How our name evolved from B-movie monster to Mendeley. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://blog.mendeley.com/2008/04/23/how-our-name-evolved-from-b-movie-monster-to-mendeley/

[31]

Hoffman D. L. and Holbrook M. B. (1993). The intellectual structure of consumer research: A bibliometric study of author cocitations in the first 15 years of the journal of consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 505–517.

[32]

Ki E.-J., Pasadeos Y., and Ertem-Eray T. (2019). Growth of public relations research networks: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Public Relations Research, 31, 5–31. doi:1080/1062726X.2019.15777390

[33]

Koo M. (2017). A bibliometric analysis of two decades of aromatherapy research. BMC Research Notes, 10, 46. doi:10.1186/s13104-016-2371 -1

[34]

Lei L. and Liao S. (2017). Publications in linguistics journals from Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau (2003–2012): A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 24, 54–64. doi:10.1080/09296174.2016.1260274

[35]

Liang H., Li J., Di Y., Zhang A., and Zhu F. (2015). Logarithmic transformation is essential for statistical analysis of fungicide EC50 values. Journal of Phytopathology, 163, 456–464. doi:10.1111/jph.12342

[36]

Lievrouw L. A. (1989). The invisible college reconsidered. Communication Research, 16, 615. doi:10.1177/009365089016005004

[37]

Liu X. and Fang H. (2017). What we can learn from tweets linking to research papers. Scientometrics, 111, 349–369. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2279-0

Digital Library

[38]

Mäkelä J., Lagström H., Kaljonen A., Simell O., and Niinikoski H. (2013). Response to the letter to the editor “indices of insulin sensitivity and resistance: Adequate logarithmic transformation are needed to keep mathematical equivalence” by Tomoyuki Kawada. Early Human Development, 89, 517. doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2013.03.009

[39]

Masip P. and Fernández-Quijada D. (2011). Mapping communication research in Catalonia: A comparative analysis of publication patterns in scholarly journals (2007-2009). Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies, 3, 95–108. doi:10.1386/cjcs.3.1.95_7

[40]

McCain K. W. (1989). Mapping authors in intellectual space: Population genetics in the 1980s. Communication Research, 16, 667. doi:10.1177/009365089016005007

[41]

Mendeley. (2019, March 8). Join a community of over 6 million users. Retrieved from https://www.mendeley.com/research-network/community

[42]

Merton R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56–63. doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56

[43]

Miyamoto S., Midorikawa N., and Nakayama K. (1989). A view of studies on bibliometrics and related subjects in Japan. Communication Research, 16, 629–641.

[44]

Muncy J. A. (1991). The journal of advertising: A twenty-year appraisal. Journal of Advertising, 20, 1–12.

[45]

Navarro M. and Martín M. (2013). Bibliometric analysis of research on women and advertising: Differences in print and audiovisual media. Comunicar, 21, 105–114. doi:10.3916/C41-2013-10

[46]

Packard G. C. (2009). On the use of logarithmic transformations in allometric analyses. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 257, 515–518. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.10.016

[47]

Packard G. C. (2013). Is logarithmic transformation necessary in allometry? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 109, 476–486. doi:10.1111/bij.12038

[48]

Paisley W. (1989). Bibliometrics, scholarly communication, and communication research. Communication Research, 16, 701. doi:10.1002/aris.1440360102

[49]

Park H. and Park H. (2018). Research evaluation of Asian countries using altmetrics: Comparing South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and China. Scientometrics, 117, 771–788. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2884-6

Digital Library

[50]

Pasadeos Y. (1985). A bibliometric study of advertising citations. Journal of Advertising, 14, 52–68. doi:10.1080/00913367.1985.10672971

[51]

Pasadeos Y. and Renfro B. (1992). A bibliometric analysis of public relations research. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4, 167–187. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr0403_03

[52]

Plusquellec P. and Denault V. (2018). The 1000 most cited papers on visible nonverbal behavior: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 42, 347–377. doi:10.1007/s10919-018-0280-9

[53]

Priem J., Piwowar H., and Hemminger B. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/html/1203.4745v1

[54]

Repiso R., Castillo-Esparcia A., and Torres-Salinas D. (2019). Altmetrics, alternative indicators for web of science communication studies journals. Scientometrics, 119, 941–958. doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03070-7

Digital Library

[55]

ResearchGate. (2017). About us. ResearchGate is built by scientists, for scientists. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/about

[56]

ResearchGate. (2019). RG score. Retrieved from https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/RG+Score

[57]

Rice R. E. and Chapin J. (1996). What’s in a name? Bibliometric analysis of 40 years of the Journal of Broadcasting (& Electronic Media). Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40, 511. doi:10.1080/08838159609364373

[58]

Roemer R. C. and Borchardt R. (2015). Introduction to altmetrics. Library Technology Reports, 51, 5–10.

[59]

Rovira-Esteva S., Aixelá J. F., and Olalla-Soler C. (2019). Citation patterns in translation studies: A format-dependent bibliometric analysis. Translation & Interpreting, 11, 147–171. doi:10.12807/ti.111201.2019.a09

[60]

Scheufele D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103–122. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x

[61]

Scheufele D. A. and Tewksbury D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9–20. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x

[62]

SCImago. (2016). Understanding indicators, tables and charts. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.scimagojr.com/help.php#rank_journals

[63]

Small H. and Greenlee E. (1989). A co-citation study of AIDS research. Communication Research, 16, 642. doi:10.1177/009365089016005006

[64]

Strevens M. (2006). The role of the Matthew effect in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 159–170. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x

[65]

Stuart A., Faucette S., and Thomas W. (2017). Author impact metrics in communication sciences and disorder research. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60, 2704–2724. doi:10.1044/2017_JSLHR-H-16-0458

[66]

Sud P. and Thelwall M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98, 1131–1143. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2

Digital Library

[67]

Thelwall M., Haustein S., Larivière V., and Sugimoto C. R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS One, 8, 1–7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064841

[68]

Thomson Reuters. (2008). Using bibliometrics: A guide to evaluating research performance with citation data. Retrieved from http://ips.clarivate.com//m/pdfs/325133_thomson.pdf

[69]

Torres-Salinas D., Cabezas-Clavijo Á., and Jiménez-Contreras E. (2013). Altmetrics: New indicators for scientific communication in web 2.0. Comunicar, 21, 53–60.

[70]

White W. J. (2011). The study of games in the ICA: A bibliometric analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Boston, MA.

[71]

Wilson P. M., Petticrew M., Calnan M. W., and Nazareth I. (2010). Disseminating research findings: What should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks. Implementation Science: IS, 5, 91–91. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-91

[72]

You J. (2014, September 17). The top 50 science stars of Twitter. Science. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/09/top-50-science-stars-twitter

[73]

Yu H., Xu S., Xiao T., Hemminger B., and Yang S. (2017). Global science discussed in local altmetrics: Weibo and its comparison with Twitter. Journal of Informetrics, 11, 466–482. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.02.011

[74]

Zahedi Z., Costas R., and Wouters P. (2014). How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 101, 1491–1513. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1264-0

Digital Library

[75]

Zi-yu L. (2014). The contour of Library Materials About Macau: A bibliometric profile on the world stage. Intercultural Communication Studies, 23, 117–163.

Author Biography

Author Biography

Ben Wasike is a professor in the Communication Department at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. He teaches classes in visual communication, communication theory, quantitative research methods, and social media communication, among others. His research focusses on social media, political communication, visual communication, and law and policy issues (Email: [email protected]).

Cited By

Tóth JHáló GGoyanes M(2023)Beyond views, productivity, and citations: measuring geopolitical differences of scientific impact in communication researchScientometrics10.1007/s11192-023-04801-7128:10(5705-5729)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-023-04801-7
Moshtagh MJowkar TYaghtin MSotudeh H(2023)The moderating effect of altmetrics on the correlations between single and multi-faceted university ranking systems: the case of THE and QS vs. Nature Index and LeidenScientometrics10.1007/s11192-022-04548-7128:1(761-781)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-022-04548-7

Index Terms

Citations Gone #Social: Examining the Effect of Altmetrics on Citations and Readership in Communication Research

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities

The prospects of altmetrics are especially encouraging for research fields in the humanities that currently are difficult to study using established bibliometric methods. Yet, little is known about the altmetric impact of research fields in the ...
A novel method for depicting academic disciplines through Google Scholar Citations: The case of Bibliometrics

This article describes a procedure to generate a snapshot of the structure of a specific scientific community and their outputs based on the information available in Google Scholar Citations (GSC). We call this method multifaceted analysis of ...
Altmetrics analysis of highly cited academic papers in the field of library and information science
Abstract
In this study, altmetrics for LIS research papers, and whether OA affects the altmetrics, were analyzed. In addition, by analyzing the differences in the altmetrics in 10 major research areas of LIS, this study identified sub-research topics that ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

Social Science Computer Review Volume 39, Issue 3

Jun 2021

166 pages

ISSN:0894-4393

Issue’s Table of Contents

© The Author(s) 2019.

Publisher

Sage Publications, Inc.

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 June 2021

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

2
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 09 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Tóth JHáló GGoyanes M(2023)Beyond views, productivity, and citations: measuring geopolitical differences of scientific impact in communication researchScientometrics10.1007/s11192-023-04801-7128:10(5705-5729)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-023-04801-7
Moshtagh MJowkar TYaghtin MSotudeh H(2023)The moderating effect of altmetrics on the correlations between single and multi-faceted university ranking systems: the case of THE and QS vs. Nature Index and LeidenScientometrics10.1007/s11192-022-04548-7128:1(761-781)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-022-04548-7

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents