Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2019 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

26. Social Media Metrics for New Research Evaluation

verfasst von : Paul Wouters, Zohreh Zahedi, Rodrigo Costas

Erschienen in: Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This chapter approaches, from both a theoretical and practical perspective, the most important principles and conceptual frameworks that can be considered in the application of social media metrics for scientific evaluation. We propose conceptually valid uses for social media metrics in research evaluation. The chapter discusses frameworks and uses of these metrics as well as principles and recommendations for the consideration and application of current (and potentially new) metrics in research evaluation.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Developing Current Research Information Systems (CRIS) as Data Sources for Studies of Research
Nächstes Kapitel Reviewing, Indicating, and Counting Books for Modern Research Evaluation Systems
Literatur
26.1
26.2
S. Haustein, T.D. Bowman, R. Costas: Interpreting altmetrics: Viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories. In: Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication, ed. by C.R. Sugimoto (De Gruyter, Berlin 2016) pp. 372–406
26.3
T. Almind, P. Ingwersen: Informetric analyses on the world wide web: Methodological approaches to “webometrics”, J. Doc. 53, 404–426 (1997)CrossRef
26.4
B. Cronin, H.W. Snyder, H. Rosenbaum, A. Martinson, E. Callahan: Invoked on the web, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 49(14), 1319–1328 (1998)CrossRef
26.5
26.6
J. Priem, H. Piwowar, B. Hemminger: Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact, arXiv:1203.4745v1 (2012) [cs.DL]
26.7
26.8
J. Priem: Scholarship: Beyond the paper, Nature 495(7442), 437–440 (2013)CrossRef
26.9
26.10
26.11
26.12
J. Wilsdon, L. Allen, E. Belfiore, P. Campbell, S. Curry, S. Hill, R. Jones, R. Kain, S. Kerridge, M. Thelwall, J. Tinkler, I. Viney, P. Wouters, J. Hill, B. Johnson: The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management (HEFCE, Stoke Gifford 2015), https://​doi.​org/​10.​13140/​RG.​2.​1.​4929.​1363CrossRef
26.13
D. Hicks, P. Wouters, L. Waltman, S. de Rijcke, I. Rafols: The Leiden manifesto for research metrics, Nature 520, 429–431 (2015)CrossRef
26.14
26.15
W. Glänzel: The need for standards in bibliometric research and technology, Scientometrics 35(2), 167–176 (1996)CrossRef
26.16
H.F. Moed: Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation, Vol. 9 (Springer, Dordrecht 2005)
26.17
L. Leydesdorff, P. Wouters, L. Bornmann: Professional and citizen bibliometrics: Complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators—A state-of-the-art report, Scientometrics 109(3), 2129–2150 (2016)CrossRef
26.18
M. Thelwall: Introduction to webometrics: Quantitative web research for the social sciences, Synth. Lect. Inf. Concepts Retr. Serv. 1(1), 1–116 (2009)
26.19
P. Wouters, W. Glänzel, J. Gläser, I. Rafols: The dilemmas of performance indicators of individual researchers: An urgent debate in bibliometrics, ISSI Newsletter 9(3), 48–53 (2013)
26.20
26.21
H.F. Moed: Altmetrics as traces of the computerization of the research process. In: Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication, ed. by C.R. Sugimoto (De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston 2016)
26.22
S. Haustein: Grand challenges in altmetrics: Heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies, Scientometrics 108(1), 413–423 (2016)CrossRef
26.23
R. Costas: Towards the social media studies of science: Social media metrics, present and future, Bibl. An. Investig. 13(1), 1–5 (2017)
26.24
H. Shema, J. Bar-Ilan, M. Thelwall: Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(5), 1018–1027 (2014)CrossRef
26.25
I. Rowlands, D. Nicholas, B. Russell, N. Canty, A. Watkinson: Social media use in the research workflow, Learn. Publ. 24(3), 183–195 (2011)CrossRef
26.26
E. Orduña-Malea, A. Martín-Martín, E.D. López-Cózar: ResearchGate como fuente de evaluación científica: Desvelando sus aplicaciones bibliométricas, Prof. Inf. 25(2), 303–310 (2016)
26.27
26.28
Z. Zahedi, R. Costas: General discussion of data quality challenges in social media metrics: Extensive comparison of four major altmetric data aggregators, PloS ONE 13(5), e0197326 (2018)CrossRef
26.29
P.B. Brandtzæg: Towards a unified media-user typology (MUT): A meta-analysis and review of the research literature on media-user typologies, Comput. Hum. Behav. 26(5), 940–956 (2010)CrossRef
26.30
S.J. Barnes, H. Bauer, M. Neumann, F. Huber: Segmenting cyberspace: A customer typology for the internet, Eur. J. Mark. 41(1), 71–93 (2007)CrossRef
26.31
26.32
26.33
E. Mohammadi, M. Thelwall: Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(8), 1627–1638 (2014)CrossRef
26.34
S. Haustein, T.D. Bowman, R. Costas: Communities of attention around journal papers: Who is tweeting about scientific publications? In: Soc. Media Soc. 2015 Int. Conf., Toronto (2015) pp. 4–5
26.35
S. Haustein, T.D. Bowman, R. Costas: When is an article actually published? An analysis of online availability, publication, and indexation dates. In: 15th Int. Conf. Scientom. Informetr. (ISSI) (2015) pp. 1170–1179, arXiv:1505.00796v1
26.36
S. Haustein, R. Costas: Identifying Twitter audiences: Who is tweeting about scientific papers? In: ASISandT SIG/MET Metrics 2015 Workshop Identifying, St. Louis (2015) pp. 9–11
26.37
26.38
26.39
Q. Ke, Y. Ahn, C.R. Sugimoto: A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter, PLOS ONE 12(4), 1–28 (2016)
26.40
D.M. Boyd, N.B. Ellison: Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 13(1), 210–230 (2007)CrossRef
26.41
R.D. Putnam: Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Simon Schuster, New York 2000)
26.42
M. Hofer, V. Aubert: Perceived bridging and bonding social capital on Twitter: Differentiating between followers and followees, Comput. Hum. Behav. 29(6), 2134–2142 (2013)CrossRef
26.43
M. Kaigo: Social media usage during disasters and social capital: Twitter and the great east Japan earthquake, Keio Commun. Rev. 34, 19–35 (2012)
26.44
N. Robinson-Garcia, T.N. van Leeuwen, I. Rafols: Using altmetrics for contextualised mapping of societal impact: From hits to networks, Sci. Publ. Policy 45(6), 815–862 (2017)CrossRef
26.45
C. Hank, C.R. Sugimoto, A. Tsou, J. Pomerantz: Faculty and student interactions via Facebook: Policies, preferences, and practices, Inf. Technol. 56(5), 216–223 (2014)
26.46
S. Haustein, R. Costas, V. Larivière: Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns, PLoS ONE 10(3), e0120495 (2015)CrossRef
26.47
H. Shema, J. Bar-Ilan, M. Thelwall: How is research blogged? A content analysis approach, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66(6), 1136–1149 (2015)CrossRef
26.48
Y. Gingras: Criteria for evaluating indicators. In: Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact, ed. by B. Cronin, C.R. Sugimoto (MIT Press, Cambridge 2014) pp. 108–125
26.49
R.E. Rice, C.L. Borgman, D. Bednarski, P.J. Hart: Journal-to-journal citation data: Issues of validity and reliability, Scientometrics 15(3/4), 257–282 (1989)CrossRef
26.50
A.J. Nederhof: The validity and reliability of evaluation scholarly performance. In: Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, ed. by A.F.J. van Raan (Elsevier, Amsterdam 1988) pp. 193–228CrossRef
26.51
26.52
M.H. MacRoberts, B.R. MacRoberts: Citation analysis and the science policy arena, Trends Biochem. Sci. 14(1), 8–12 (1989)CrossRef
26.53
26.54
J. Nicolaisen: Citation analysis, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 41, 609–641 (2007)CrossRef
26.55
N. Maflahi, M. Thelwall: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(1), 191–199 (2016)CrossRef
26.56
M. Thelwall: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published?, Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 69(2), 174–183 (2017)CrossRef
26.57
Z. Zahedi, R. Costas, P. Wouters: Mendeley readership as a filtering tool to identify highly cited publications, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 68(10), 2511–2521 (2017)CrossRef
26.58
R. Costas, S. Haustein, Z. Zahedi: Larivière: Exploring paths for the normalization of altmetrics: Applying the characteristic scores and scales. In: Altmetrics16. Moving Beyond Counts: Integrating Context, Bucharest (2016) pp. 1–8
26.59
M. Thelwall, K. Kousha: Web indicators for research evaluation. Part 2: Social media metrics, Prof. Inf. 24(5), 607 (2015)
26.60
R. Costas, Z. Zahedi, P. Wouters: Do altmetrics correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66(10), 2003–2019 (2015)CrossRef
26.61
M. Nardo, M. Saisana, A. Saltelli, S. Tarantola, A. Hoffman, E. Giovannini: Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators Methodology and User Guide, OECD Statistics Working Papers (OECD, Paris 2005)
26.62
X. Li, M. Thelwall: F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. In: Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Sci. Technol. Indicators, Vol. 3 (2012) pp. 451–551
26.63
Z. Zahedi, R. Costas, P. Wouters: How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of “alternative metrics” in scientific publications, Scientometrics 101(2), 1491–1513 (2014)CrossRef
26.64
R. Haunschild, L. Bornmann: F1000Prime: An analysis of discipline-specific reader data from Mendeley, F1000Research 41, 1–5 (2015)
26.65
L. Waltman, R. Costas: F1000 recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation: A comparison with citations, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(3), 433–445 (2014)CrossRef
26.66
M. Thelwall, S. Haustein, V. Larivière, C.R. Sugimoto: Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services, PLoS ONE 8(5), e64841 (2013)CrossRef
26.67
26.68
C.R. Sugimoto, S. Work, V. Larivière, S. Haustein: Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 68(9), 2037–2062 (2017)CrossRef
26.69
N. Mallig: A relational database for bibliometric analysis, J. Informetr. 4(4), 564–580 (2010)CrossRef
26.70
F. Narin: Evaluative Bibliometrics: The Use of Publication and Citation Anlaysis in the Evaluation of Scientific Activity (Computer Horizons, Washington 1976)
26.71
T. van Leeuwen: Descriptive versus evaluative bibliometrics. In: Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, ed. by H.F. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch (Springer, Dordrecht 2004) pp. 373–388CrossRef
26.72
L. Waltman, N.J. Van Eck: The need for contextualized scientometric analysis: An opinion paper. In: STI Conference 2016. Peripheries, Frontiers and Beyond, ed. by I. Ràfols, J. Molas-Gallart, E. Castro-Martínez, R. Woolley (Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia 2016) pp. 1–9
26.73
R. Costas, Z. Zahedi, P. Wouters: The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations, Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 67(3), 260–288 (2015)CrossRef
26.74
R. Costas, A. Perianes-Rodríguez, J. Ruiz-Castillo: On the quest for currencies of science: Field “exchange rates” for citations and Mendeley readership, Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 69(5), 557–575 (2017)CrossRef
26.75
M. Thelwall: Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation, J. Inf. 11(1), 128–151 (2016)
26.76
G. Colavizza, M. Franceschet: Clustering citation histories in the Physical Review, J. Informetr. 10(4), 1037–1051 (2016)CrossRef
26.77
L. Waltman, N.J. van Eck: Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method, J. Informetr. 9(4), 872–894 (2015)CrossRef
26.78
26.79
L. Waltman, N.J. Van Eck: A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63(12), 2378–2392 (2012)CrossRef
26.80
N.J. van Eck, L. Waltman: Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping, Scientometrics 84(2), 523–538 (2010)CrossRef
26.81
R. Costas, J. Van Honk, C. Calero-Medina, Z. Zahedi: Discussing practical applications for altmetrics: Development of “social media profiles” for African, European and North American publications. In: 22nd Int. Conf. Sci. Technol. Indicators (STI), Paris (2017), https://​sti2017.​paris/​full-programme/​
26.82
26.83
R. Haunschild, L. Bornmann, L. Leydesdorff: Networks of reader and country status: An analysis of Mendeley reader statistics, PeerJ Comput. Sci. 1, e32 (2015)CrossRef
26.84
P. Kraker, C. Schlögl, K. Jack, S. Lindstaedt: Visualization of co-readership patterns from an online reference management system, J. Informetr. 9(1), 169–182 (2015)CrossRef
26.85
Z. Zahedi, N. Van Eck: Exploring topics of interest of Mendeley users, J. Altmetrics 1(1), 5 (2018)CrossRef
26.86
26.87
J. Jiang, D. He, C. Ni: Social reference. In: Proc. 11th Annu. Int. ACM/IEEE Joint Conf. Digital Librar.–JCDL'11, Vol. 11 (ACM, New York 2011) p. 401
26.88
K.W. Boyack, R. Klavans: Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61(12), 2389–2404 (2010)CrossRef
26.89
H. Small: Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 24(4), 265–269 (1973)CrossRef
26.90
R. Haunschild, L. Bornmann: Normalization of Mendeley reader counts for impact assessment, J. Informetr. 10(1), 62–73 (2016)CrossRef
26.91
E. Mohammadi, M. Thelwall, S. Haustein, V. Larivière: Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66(9), 1832–1846 (2015)CrossRef
26.92
J. Bar-Ilan: Astrophysics publications on arXiv, Scopus and Mendeley: A case study, Scientometrics 100(1), 217–225 (2014)CrossRef
26.93
M. Thelwall, P. Sud: Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(12), 3036–3050 (2016)CrossRef
26.94
D. Torres-Salinas, Á. Cabezas-Clavijo, E. Jiménez-Contreras: Altmetrics: New indicators for scientific communication in Web 2.0, Comunicar 21(41), 53–60 (2013)CrossRef
26.95
S. Haustein, I. Peters, C.R. Sugimoto, M. Thelwall, V. Larivière: Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(4), 656–669 (2014)CrossRef
26.96
L. Bornmann, R. Haunschild: Normalization of Mendeley reader impact on the reader- and paper-side: A comparison of the mean discipline normalized reader score (MDNRS) with the mean normalized reader score (MNRS) and bare reader counts, J. Informetr. 10(3), 776–788 (2016)CrossRef
26.97
Z. Zahedi: Understanding the value of social media metrics for research evaluation, Doctoral dissertation (Centre for Science & Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden Univ., Leiden 2018)
26.98
L. Bornmann: Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime, J. Informetr. 8(4), 935–950 (2014)CrossRef
26.99
L. Bornmann, L. Leydesdorff: The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000, J. Informetr. 7(2), 286–291 (2013)CrossRef
26.100
L. Bornmann, R. Haunschild: t factor: A metric for measuring impact on Twitter, Malays. J. Lib. Inf. Sci. 21(2), 13–20 (2016)
26.101
26.102
G. Eysenbach: Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact, J. Med. Internet Res. 13(4), e123 (2011)CrossRef
26.103
L. Bornmann: What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 64(2), 217–233 (2013)CrossRef
26.104
L. Bornmann, R. Haunschild: Which people use which scientific papers? An evaluation of data from F1000: Discovery Service para Universidad de La Rioja, J. Informetr. 9(3), 477–487 (2015)CrossRef
26.105
Z. Zahedi, R. Costas, V. Larivière, S. Haustein: On the relationships between bibliometric and altmetric indicators: The effect of discipline and density level. In: The 2016 Altmetrics Workshop, Bucharest (2016)
26.106
Z. Zahedi, S. Haustein: On the relationships between bibliographic characteristics of scientific documents and citation and Mendeley readership counts: A large-scale analysis of web of science publications, J. Informetr. 12(1), 191–202 (2018)CrossRef
26.107
L. Bornmann, R. Haunschild: To what extent does the Leiden manifesto also apply to altmetrics? A discussion of the manifesto against the background of research into altmetrics, Online Inf. Rev. 40(4), 529–543 (2016)CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Social Media Metrics for New Research Evaluation
verfasst von
Paul Wouters
Zohreh Zahedi
Rodrigo Costas
Copyright-Jahr
2019
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Buch
Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02510-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-02511-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2019

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_26

Premium Partner

    Marktübersichten

    Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen. 

    Zur Marktübersicht
    Bildnachweise