Abstract

The possibility of creating and easily distributing something via a digital platform creates an enormous material volume. With the increase of scientific publications it becomes harder for scholars to choose the most related and significant resources from the others (Henning & Gunn, 2012). Bibliometrics measures the impact of scholars between each other, but the impact of articles across the entire web is not limited by this. On the other hand, altmetrics measures the impact of articles from the web, alongside bibliometric data. The aim of this study is to investigate the probable relationships between traditional metrics and altmetrics by analysing the PLoS Article-Level Metric (ALM) dataset.

Keywords: Bibliometrics, altmetrics, Article Level Metric (ALM)

References

  1. Aksnes, D. W., & Taxt, R. E. (2004). Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research evaluation, 13(1), 33-41. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://rev.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/1/33.full.pdf.
  2. Al, U. (2008). Türkiye’nin Bilimsel Yayın Politikası: Atıf Dizinlerine Dayalı Bibliyometrik Bir Yaklaşım. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi, June 2008. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~umutal/publications/dissertation/c2.pdf.
  3. Almind, T. & Ingwersen, P. (1997). Informetric analysis on the World Wide Web: Methodological approaches to ‘webometrics’. Journal of Documentation, 53(4). pp. 404-426. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~muresan/IR/Docs/Articles/jdocAlmind1997.pdf
  4. Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A. & Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS ONE 4. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006022. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006022.
  5. Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of alt metrics. Journal of Informatics, 8, 895-903.
  6. Delgado López-Cózar, E., Robinson-García, N., & Torres-Salinas, D. (2012). Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: simple, easy and tempting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.0638. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0638.
  7. Garfield, E (20 June 1994). The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://wokinfo.com/essays/impact-factor/.
  8. Groth, P & Gurney, T. (2010). Studying Scientific Discourse on the Web using Bibliometrics: A Chemistry Blogging Case Study. In: Proceedings of the WebSci10: Extending the Frontiers of Society On-Line, April 26-27th, 2010, Raleigh, NC: US. . Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://wiki.few.vu.nl/sms/images/9/9c/Websci10-FINAL-29-4-2010f.pdf
  9. Haustein, S. & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage, Journal of Informetrics, 5 (3), 446-457, ISSN 1751-1577, 10.1016/j.joi.2011.04.002. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157711000393.
  10. Henning V. & Gunn W. (2012). “Impact factor: Researchers should define the metrics that matter to them.”. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2012/sep/06/mendeley-altmetricss-open-access-publishing.
  11. Howard, J. (March 12, 2012). Tracking scholarly influence beyond the impact factor. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/tracking-scholarly-influence-beyond-the-impact-factor/35565.
  12. Kear, R. & Colbert-Lewis, D. (2011). Citation searching and bibliometric measures. College & Research Libraries News, 72 (8), 470–474. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://crln.acrl.org/content/72/8/470.full.pdf+html.
  13. Mollett, A., Moran, D. & Dunleavy, P. (2011). Using Twitter in university research, teaching and impact activities: A guide for academics and researchers. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/files/2011/11/Published-Twitter_Guide_Sept_2011.pdf
  14. Neylon C, Wu S (2009). Article-Level Metrics and the Evolution of Scientific Impact. PLoS Biol 7(11): e1000242. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000242. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000242.
  15. Nowakowski, P. et al. (2011). The Collage Authoring Environment. Procedia Computer Science, 4, 608-617. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050911001220.
  16. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved January 13, 2013 from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=1.
  17. Priem, J. & Costello, K (2010). How and why scholars cite on twittter?. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15J41q9EzK3CiMMoIPKY545ACndORpa6Wtj75v1YjrzQ/present?pli=1&ueb=true#slide=id.i0.
  18. Priem, J. & Hemminger, B. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday 15. Retrieved January 13, 2013 from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2874/2570.
  19. Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.4745.
  20. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto.
  21. Thomas, O., & Willett, P. (2000). Webometric analysis of departments of librarianship and information science. Journal of information science, 26(6), 421-428.
  22. Procter, R., Williams, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., Snee, H., Voss, A. & Asgari-Targhi, M. (2010). Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 368: 4039 –4056. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0155. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1926/4039.short#cited-by.
  23. Reale, E., Barbara, A. & Costantini, A. (2007). Peer review for the evaluation of academic research: lessons from the Italian experience. Research Policy, 16(3),216-228.
  24. Schriger, D., Chehrazi, A., Merchant, R., & Altman, D. (2011). Use of the Internet by Print Medical Journals in 2003 to 2009: A Longitudinal Observational Study. Annals of Emergency Medicine In Press, Retrieved January 13, 2015 http://www.sciencedirect.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/science/article/B6WB0-51S6FN7-1/2/2edccd79138b204deee17536d13a2eae.
  25. Shirky, C. (2002). Weblogs and the Mass Amateurization of Publishing. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/weblogs_publishing.html.
  26. Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody, the power of organizing without organizations. New York, NY: Penguin Group USA.
  27. Smith, A. & Eysenck, M. (2002). The correlation between RAE ratings and citation counts in psychology. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://cogprints.org/2749/1/citations.pdf.
  28. Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many are Smarter than the Few. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/books/reviews/wisdomcrowds-why-many-are-smarter-few.
  29. Taraborelli, D. (2008). Soft peer review: social software and distributed scientific evaluation. In: Hassanaly, P. andRamrajsingh, A. and Randall, D. and Salembier, P. and Tixier, M., (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, Carry-le-Rouet, 20-23 May 2008. (pp. pp. 99-110). Institut d’Etudes Politiques d’Aix-en Provence: Aix-en-Provence, France. Retrieved January 13, 2015 http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/8279/.
  30. Wardle, D. (2010). Do “Faculty of 1000” (F1000) ratings of ecological publications serve as reasonable predictors of their future impact? Ideas Eco Evo 3. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/IEE/article/view/2379.

License

Copyright (c) 2015 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to Cite

Akbulut, M. (2015). Relationships Between Traditional Metrics and Altmerics: A Case Analysis of PLoS. Information World, 16(2), 275-285. https://doi.org/10.15612/BD.2015.470