Coverage of Data Sources and Correlations Between Altmetrics and Citation Indicators: The Case of a Brazilian Portal of Open Access Journals

IF 0.6 4区管理学 Q3 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Serials Review Pub Date : 2022-04-03 DOI:10.1080/00987913.2022.2066967

Érika Demachki, João de Melo Maricato

{"title":"Coverage of Data Sources and Correlations Between Altmetrics and Citation Indicators: The Case of a Brazilian Portal of Open Access Journals","authors":"Érika Demachki, João de Melo Maricato","doi":"10.1080/00987913.2022.2066967","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Analyzes the coverage of bibliometric and altmetric data sources, and the correlations between bibliometric citation indicators and altmetric indicators. The analyses were performed by area of knowledge, making it possible to identify differences between them. A total of 11,955 articles published in the journals of the Journal Portal of the Federal University of Goiás were analyzed. The main results were the high coverage of 95.7 and 96.7% found for the altmetric indicators of article downloads and accesses to the abstract, followed by 53.6% for Mendeley readers. The Pearson correlations between altmetric indicators and citation indicators vary from weak to moderate, the strongest correlations being those between the altmetric indicator of accesses to abstracts and the Google Scholar citations indicator (r = 0.475), and between Mendeley readers and Google Scholar citations (r = 0.467). Correlations between tweets and other altmetric indicators are always negative and very weak. The coverage of altmetric indicators varies among the areas, the highest values being found among Life Sciences. We concluded that the use of altmetric indicators, especially of Mendeley readers, can be considered complementary to bibliometric indicators.","PeriodicalId":54165,"journal":{"name":"Serials Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Serials Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2022.2066967","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Analyzes the coverage of bibliometric and altmetric data sources, and the correlations between bibliometric citation indicators and altmetric indicators. The analyses were performed by area of knowledge, making it possible to identify differences between them. A total of 11,955 articles published in the journals of the Journal Portal of the Federal University of Goiás were analyzed. The main results were the high coverage of 95.7 and 96.7% found for the altmetric indicators of article downloads and accesses to the abstract, followed by 53.6% for Mendeley readers. The Pearson correlations between altmetric indicators and citation indicators vary from weak to moderate, the strongest correlations being those between the altmetric indicator of accesses to abstracts and the Google Scholar citations indicator (r = 0.475), and between Mendeley readers and Google Scholar citations (r = 0.467). Correlations between tweets and other altmetric indicators are always negative and very weak. The coverage of altmetric indicators varies among the areas, the highest values being found among Life Sciences. We concluded that the use of altmetric indicators, especially of Mendeley readers, can be considered complementary to bibliometric indicators.

查看原文本刊更多论文

数据来源的覆盖率以及Altmetrics和引文指标之间的相关性：以巴西开放获取期刊门户网站为例

摘要分析了文献计量学和文献计量学数据源的覆盖范围，以及文献计量学引文指标与文献计量学指标之间的相关性。这些分析是按知识领域进行的，从而可以识别它们之间的差异。对戈亚斯联邦大学期刊门户网站期刊上发表的11955篇文章进行了分析。主要结果是，文章下载和摘要访问的高度指标覆盖率分别为95.7%和96.7%，其次是孟德尔读者的53.6%。altmetric指标和引文指标之间的Pearson相关性从弱到中等不等，最强的相关性是摘要访问的altmetric指数和Google Scholar引文指标之间（r = 0.475），以及孟德尔读者与谷歌学者引文之间的相关性（r = 0.467）。推特和其他altmetric指标之间的相关性总是负面的，并且非常弱。altmetric指标的覆盖范围因地区而异，在生命科学中发现的值最高。我们的结论是，使用替代指标，特别是孟德尔读者的替代指标，可以被认为是对文献计量指标的补充。

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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Serials Review INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-

CiteScore

1.60

自引率

11.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Serials Review, issued quarterly, is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal for the international serials community. Articles focus on serials in the broadest sense of the term and cover all aspects of serials information; regular columns feature interviews, exchanges on controversial topics, book reviews, and conference reports. The journal encompasses practical, theoretical, and visionary ideas for librarians, publishers, vendors, and anyone interested in the changing nature of serials. Serials Review covers all aspects of serials management: format considerations, publishing models, statistical studies, collection analysis, collaborative efforts, reference and access issues, cataloging and acquisitions, people who have shaped the serials community, and topical bibliographic studies.