在PLoS上发表的多学科论文中,原始推文和转发推文在表明不同学科领域的研究影响方面是否有所不同?

Ashraf Maleki, K. Holmberg
{"title":"在PLoS上发表的多学科论文中,原始推文和转发推文在表明不同学科领域的研究影响方面是否有所不同?","authors":"Ashraf Maleki, K. Holmberg","doi":"10.55835/6442a40ecfb1b56b638b20f8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Earlier altmetrics studies have often focused on investigating whether the number of tweets mentioning scientific articles could be used as an indicator of scientific impact or attention, with results showing weak to moderate correlations with citation counts and some disciplinary differences. But all tweets may not be equal, as original tweets and retweets may reflect different levels of engagement and, with that, impact. In this research, the relationship between original tweets and retweets and Scopus citations was analyzed for a total of 330,022 PLoS publications and compared over time and across 22 subject fields. The findings showed that the correlations were strongest between citations and original tweets, and the relationship was stronger in Social Science and Humanities subject fields than in Natural Science, Engineering and Medicine. The results showed that tweets and retweets are very different, and thus they should be considered two different metrics and analyzed separately.","PeriodicalId":334841,"journal":{"name":"27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023)","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do original tweets and retweets differ in indicating research impact across various subject areas in multidisciplinary papers published in PLoS?\",\"authors\":\"Ashraf Maleki, K. Holmberg\",\"doi\":\"10.55835/6442a40ecfb1b56b638b20f8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Earlier altmetrics studies have often focused on investigating whether the number of tweets mentioning scientific articles could be used as an indicator of scientific impact or attention, with results showing weak to moderate correlations with citation counts and some disciplinary differences. But all tweets may not be equal, as original tweets and retweets may reflect different levels of engagement and, with that, impact. In this research, the relationship between original tweets and retweets and Scopus citations was analyzed for a total of 330,022 PLoS publications and compared over time and across 22 subject fields. The findings showed that the correlations were strongest between citations and original tweets, and the relationship was stronger in Social Science and Humanities subject fields than in Natural Science, Engineering and Medicine. The results showed that tweets and retweets are very different, and thus they should be considered two different metrics and analyzed separately.\",\"PeriodicalId\":334841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023)\",\"volume\":\"81 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55835/6442a40ecfb1b56b638b20f8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55835/6442a40ecfb1b56b638b20f8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

早期的altmetrics研究通常侧重于调查提及科学文章的推文数量是否可以作为科学影响或关注的指标,结果显示与引用数量和一些学科差异之间存在弱至中等的相关性。但并非所有的推文都是平等的,因为原创推文和转发推文可能反映了不同的参与度,从而影响了不同的程度。在这项研究中,我们分析了330,022篇PLoS出版物的原创推文和转发推文与Scopus引用之间的关系,并对22个主题领域的不同时间进行了比较。研究结果表明,引用次数和原创推文之间的相关性最强,而且在社会科学和人文学科领域的相关性强于自然科学、工程和医学。结果表明,tweet和retwets是非常不同的,因此它们应该被视为两个不同的指标,并单独分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do original tweets and retweets differ in indicating research impact across various subject areas in multidisciplinary papers published in PLoS?
Earlier altmetrics studies have often focused on investigating whether the number of tweets mentioning scientific articles could be used as an indicator of scientific impact or attention, with results showing weak to moderate correlations with citation counts and some disciplinary differences. But all tweets may not be equal, as original tweets and retweets may reflect different levels of engagement and, with that, impact. In this research, the relationship between original tweets and retweets and Scopus citations was analyzed for a total of 330,022 PLoS publications and compared over time and across 22 subject fields. The findings showed that the correlations were strongest between citations and original tweets, and the relationship was stronger in Social Science and Humanities subject fields than in Natural Science, Engineering and Medicine. The results showed that tweets and retweets are very different, and thus they should be considered two different metrics and analyzed separately.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信