Metrics and Altmetrics: an exploratory study of a possible correlation between the most cited papers in open and restricted access in 2016-2018

André Pacheco, A. Sousa, Angela Yanai, Susana M. M. Lopes, L. Machado
{"title":"Metrics and Altmetrics: an exploratory study of a possible correlation between the most cited papers in open and restricted access in 2016-2018","authors":"André Pacheco, A. Sousa, Angela Yanai, Susana M. M. Lopes, L. Machado","doi":"10.1145/3284179.3284224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Citations count in reference databases has been consolidated as the traditional method of assessing the impact of a scientific work. However, the recent developments around the diversity of web communication channels triggered the scientific community to start questioning the legitimacy of these metrics as the sole indicators of impact. In this context, alternative metrics based on web indicators have begun to emerge. This study attempts to determine the existence of a correlation between traditional citations and altmetric mentions, while also considering if the type of access --- open or restricted --- has an influence in the impact of a publication. The study is based on a mixed methodology. The sample was composed by the most cited hot papers extracted from the Web of Science, and the most mentioned papers in Altmetrics, between 2016 and 2018, according to type of access. Their numbers in altmetrics and in reference databases (Web of Science and Scopus) was collected and the data was analyzed using Spearman's correlation coefficient. It is concluded that there is not a significant correlation between citations and altmetrics mentions, and that the type of access is not relevant for a paper's success.","PeriodicalId":370465,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3284179.3284224","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Citations count in reference databases has been consolidated as the traditional method of assessing the impact of a scientific work. However, the recent developments around the diversity of web communication channels triggered the scientific community to start questioning the legitimacy of these metrics as the sole indicators of impact. In this context, alternative metrics based on web indicators have begun to emerge. This study attempts to determine the existence of a correlation between traditional citations and altmetric mentions, while also considering if the type of access --- open or restricted --- has an influence in the impact of a publication. The study is based on a mixed methodology. The sample was composed by the most cited hot papers extracted from the Web of Science, and the most mentioned papers in Altmetrics, between 2016 and 2018, according to type of access. Their numbers in altmetrics and in reference databases (Web of Science and Scopus) was collected and the data was analyzed using Spearman's correlation coefficient. It is concluded that there is not a significant correlation between citations and altmetrics mentions, and that the type of access is not relevant for a paper's success.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Metrics和Altmetrics: 2016-2018年开放获取和限制获取中被引次数最多的论文之间可能存在的相关性的探索性研究
参考数据库中的引文计数已被巩固为评估科学工作影响的传统方法。然而,最近围绕网络传播渠道多样性的发展引发了科学界开始质疑这些指标作为影响的唯一指标的合法性。在这种情况下,基于web指标的替代指标已经开始出现。本研究试图确定传统引文和替代计量提及之间是否存在相关性,同时也考虑访问类型(开放或限制)是否对出版物的影响有影响。这项研究基于一种混合方法。样本由2016年至2018年间从Web of Science中提取的被引用次数最多的热门论文和Altmetrics中被提及次数最多的论文组成,根据访问类型。收集其在altmetrics和参考数据库(Web of Science和Scopus)中的数量,并使用Spearman相关系数对数据进行分析。结果表明,论文被引用次数与论文被引用次数之间没有显著的相关性,论文被引用的类型与论文的成功与否无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A complete psychophysiological profile of a Paralympic athlete in a ultraendurance: A case study Design and prototyping by additive manufacturing of a functional splint for rehabilitation of Achilles tendon intrasubstance rupture Experience in the implementation of projects in professional environment in a 1st cycle of studies of Civil Engineering Development and use of mobile technologies that foster students' evaluative judgement: a design-based research Academic digital books: The publishing industry VS Openness in book reading
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1