International Journal of Information Science and Management (IJISM)

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Peer Review Process

Journal Metrics

Open Access Policy

Language editing services

Comparing the Citations Counts and Altmetrics of the Top Medical Science Journals in Scopus

Document Type : Articles

Authors

1 Associate Prof., Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman

2 M.A. in Knowledge and Information Science and staff of Literature Library at Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman

Abstract

Early altmetric investigations have focused on measuring the correlations between citation and altmetrics to partially validate the new metrics articles (Thelwall, Haustein, Larivière, & Sugimoto, 2013; Priem, & Hemminger, 2010; Costas, Zahedi, & Wouters, 2014). The main aim of this research is to study the relationship between citation count indicator and almetrics or the new metrics in social -web of medical sciences journals. Present research is an applied research and the method used for doing it, is descriptive from correlation type which test relationship between citation count indicators and almetrics or the new metrics in social web. 111 medical sciences journals which have the highest SJR in Scopus databases were selected as research population from Scimago Journal Ranking (SJR) 2013-2014. Altmetrics—alternative metrics usually based on data from the social web which could be seen as a particularly promising approach in efforts to find appropriate measures for assessing Medical Science Journals were extracted through altmetrics.com. Research results show that there is significant correlation between Medical science journals altmetrics tools like F1000, Mention, Facebook, and News and their citation Numbers. There is no significant correlation between Medical science journals altmetrics tools like Reddit, Blog posts, Google plus, Tweets and their citation numbers. Structural equation modeling also shows the same results.

Keywords

References
  1. Alhoori, H., & Furuta, R. (2014). Do altmetrics follow the crowd or does the crowd follow altmetrics?. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 375-378). IEEE Press
  2. Alhoori, H., Choudhury, S.R., Kanan, T., Fox, E. A. and Gils, C. Lee. (2015). On the relationship between open access and altmetrics. Proceedings of the iConference 2015,
  3. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2142/73451.
  4. Allen, H.G., Stanton, T.R., Di Pietro, F. & Moseley, G.L. (2013). Social media release increases dissemination of original articles in the Clinical Pain Sciences. PLOS ONE, 8(7), 1-6. Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal. pone.0068914
  5. Armbruster, C. (2008). Access, usage and citation metrics: what function for digital libraries and repositories in research evaluation? Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/ abstract=1088453
  6. Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars' visibility on the social Web. arXiv preprint arXiv:1205.5611.
  7. Blecic, D. D. (1999). Measurements of journal use: An analysis of the correlations between three methods. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 87(1), 20–25.
  8. Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Smith, J.A., and Luce, R. (2005). Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: A comparison of download and citation data. Information Processing and Management, 41(6), 1419-1440.
  9. Bornmann, L. (2014). Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 935-950.
  10. Bornmann, L. & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Statistical tests and research assessments: A comment on Schneider. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 64(6), 1306-1308.
  11. Brody, T., Harnad, S. and Carr, L. (2006), Earlier Web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 57(8), 1060–1072.
  12. Cave, Richard (2012) Overview of the altmetrics landscape. Proceedings of the Charleston Library Conference (pp.348-356). Retrieved from http://www.webcitation.org/ 6h1nqBKGY
  13. Colson, V. (2011). Science blogs as competing channels for the dissemination of science news. Journalism, 12(7), 889-902.
  14. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z. & Wouters P. (2014). Do altmetrics correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2003-2019.
  15. Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4),e123. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2012
  16. Fausto, S., Machado, F. A., Bento, L. F. J., Iamarino, A., Nahas, T. R., & Munger, D. S. (2012). Research blogging: Indexing and registering the change in science 2.0. PLoS ONE, 10(4). Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/ journal. pone.0050109
  17. Garfield, E. (2011). Full Text downloads and citations: Some reflections. In Keynote lecture at the Seminar “Scientific Measurement and Mapping.” Santa Fe, New Mexico. Retrieved from http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/santafe2011.pdf
  18. Groth, P. & Gurney, T. (2010). Studying scientific discourse on the Web using bibliometrics: A chemistry blogging case study. Proceedings of the Web Science: Extending the Frontiers of Society On-Line, Raleigh, NC, USA.
  19. Haustein, S. & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 446-457. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi. 2011.04.002.
  20. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2014). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1145-1163.
  21. Holmberg, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics. 102(2), 1027-1042.
  22. Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461-471.
  23. Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels. Scientometrics, .97(2), 383-395.
  24. Ortega, J. L. (2015). Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: the case of CSIC’s members. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 39-49.
  25. Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. M. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15(7). Retrieved from https://firstmonday.org /article/view/2874/2570
  26. Robinson-Garcia, N., Torres-Salinas, D., Zahedi, Z., & Costas, R. (2014). New data, new possibilities: exploring the insides of Altmetric. com. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.0135.
  27. Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2007). The missing link: journal usage metrics. Aslib Proceedings, 59(3), 222–228.
  28. Schloegl, C., & Gorraiz, J. (2011). Global usage versus global citation metrics: The case of pharmacology journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2005), 161–170.
  29. Schloegl, C., & Stock, W.G. (2004). Impact and relevance of LIS journals: A scientometric analysis of international and German‐language LIS journals—Citation analysis versus reader survey. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 55(3), 1155-1168. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20070
  30. Shema, H. Bar-Ilan, J. & Thelwall, M. (2012). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PLos ONE, 7(5). Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article? id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035869
  31. Shema, H. & Bar-Ilan, J. & Thelwall, M. (2014). Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 65)5), 1018-1027.
  32. Shuai, X. Pepe, & Bollen, J. (2012). How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: article downloads, twitter mentions, and citations. PLoS ONE, 7(11),e47523. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047523.
  33. Sud, P. & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131-1143.
  34. Thelwall, M. & Kousha, K. (2016). Academic software downloads from Google Code: useful usage indicators? Information Research, 21(1). Retrieved from http://www.informationr. net/ir/21-1/paper709.html#.XAO_8uJdLcs
  35. Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (2016). Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(8), 1962-1972.
  36. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S. Larivière, V. & Sugimoto, C.R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64841. https://doi.org /10.1371/journal.pone.0064841
  37. Waltman, L., & Costas, R. (2014). F 1000 Recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation: A comparison with citations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 433-445.
  38. Wang, X., Mao, W., Xu, S. & Zhang, C. (2013). Usage history of scientific literature: Nature metrics and metrics of Nature publications. Scientometrics, 98(3), 1923-1933.
  39. Wardle, D. (2010). Do Faculty of 1000 (F1000) ratings of ecological publications serve as reasonable predictors of their future impact? Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 3. Retrieved from http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/IEE/article/viewArticle/2379
  40. Wolinsky, H. (2011). More than a Blog. EMBO reports, 12(11), 1102-1105.
  41. Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control: tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century (pp. 847-857). Utrecht: SURF foundation.
  42. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., Wouters, P. (2014). How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics. 102(2), 1491-1513.
International Journal of Information Science and Management (IJISM)
Volume 17, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
January 2019
Files
History
  • Receive Date: 16 January 2019
  • Revise Date: 25 March 2023
  • Accept Date: 03 December 2022
  • First Publish Date: 03 December 2022
Share
How to cite
Statistics