社会科学高被引研究论文的Altmetrics

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

Serials Review Pub Date : 2021-01-02 DOI:10.1080/00987913.2021.1882652

Jane Cho

{"title":"社会科学高被引研究论文的Altmetrics","authors":"Jane Cho","doi":"10.1080/00987913.2021.1882652","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The purpose of this study is to examine the altmetrics of academic papers highly cited in the social sciences and to assess whether the altmetrics show any correlation with the citations and open access status. To accomplish this goal, 638 highly cited articles from SCOPUS were extracted and PlumX metrics were used to measure the altmetrics (views, readers, blogs, Wikis, and Tweets). Then, the relationship among altmetrics, citation rates, and open access status was analyzed through Spearman correlation analysis and the Mann–Whitney test. In addition, with corresponding analysis, this study identified and visualized the differences in altmetrics between 10 social science sub-disciplines. As a result, the papers in the social sciences have greater than one altmetrics presence in greater than 30% of all altmetrics sources. In detail, greater than 90% of the papers had one or more readers in Mendeley, and 50% of the papers had one or more references in Wiki. There was also a strong correlation between the numbers of citations and readers, and open access papers showed a higher altmetrics presence than those that were closed. In terms of differences between disciplines, many psychology articles were registered as a reference on Wiki; many articles in the fields of humanity, society, and politics were drawn to popular discussions through Tweets; and the education field had the highest number of Mendeley readers. This study traced the social influence of highly cited papers in the social sciences that had not been understood before and then statistically interpreted the differences in social impact among the 10 social science disciplines.","PeriodicalId":54165,"journal":{"name":"Serials Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00987913.2021.1882652","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Altmetrics of Highly Cited Research Papers in Social Science\",\"authors\":\"Jane Cho\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00987913.2021.1882652\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The purpose of this study is to examine the altmetrics of academic papers highly cited in the social sciences and to assess whether the altmetrics show any correlation with the citations and open access status. To accomplish this goal, 638 highly cited articles from SCOPUS were extracted and PlumX metrics were used to measure the altmetrics (views, readers, blogs, Wikis, and Tweets). Then, the relationship among altmetrics, citation rates, and open access status was analyzed through Spearman correlation analysis and the Mann–Whitney test. In addition, with corresponding analysis, this study identified and visualized the differences in altmetrics between 10 social science sub-disciplines. As a result, the papers in the social sciences have greater than one altmetrics presence in greater than 30% of all altmetrics sources. In detail, greater than 90% of the papers had one or more readers in Mendeley, and 50% of the papers had one or more references in Wiki. There was also a strong correlation between the numbers of citations and readers, and open access papers showed a higher altmetrics presence than those that were closed. In terms of differences between disciplines, many psychology articles were registered as a reference on Wiki; many articles in the fields of humanity, society, and politics were drawn to popular discussions through Tweets; and the education field had the highest number of Mendeley readers. This study traced the social influence of highly cited papers in the social sciences that had not been understood before and then statistically interpreted the differences in social impact among the 10 social science disciplines.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54165,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Serials Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00987913.2021.1882652\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Serials Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2021.1882652\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Serials Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2021.1882652","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: 7

摘要

摘要本研究的目的是考察社会科学领域高被引学术论文的替代计量，并评估替代计量是否与被引次数和开放获取状态存在相关性。为了实现这一目标，我们从SCOPUS中提取了638篇高引用文章，并使用PlumX指标来衡量其他指标(视图、读者、博客、wiki和tweet)。然后，通过Spearman相关分析和Mann-Whitney检验分析altmetrics、被引率与开放获取状态之间的关系。此外，通过相应的分析，本研究确定并可视化了10个社会科学子学科之间altmetrics的差异。因此，社会科学领域的论文在超过30%的替代计量来源中有一个以上的替代计量。具体来说，超过90%的论文在Mendeley中有一个或多个读者，50%的论文在Wiki中有一个或多个参考文献。引用次数和读者数量之间也有很强的相关性，开放获取论文比关闭的论文显示出更高的替代指标。在学科差异方面，许多心理学文章在维基上被注册为参考文献;许多人文、社会和政治领域的文章通过推特被吸引到热门讨论中;教育领域拥有最多的门德利读者。本研究通过对社会科学领域中高被引论文的社会影响力进行追踪，对10个社会科学学科之间的社会影响力差异进行统计分析。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Altmetrics of Highly Cited Research Papers in Social Science

Abstract The purpose of this study is to examine the altmetrics of academic papers highly cited in the social sciences and to assess whether the altmetrics show any correlation with the citations and open access status. To accomplish this goal, 638 highly cited articles from SCOPUS were extracted and PlumX metrics were used to measure the altmetrics (views, readers, blogs, Wikis, and Tweets). Then, the relationship among altmetrics, citation rates, and open access status was analyzed through Spearman correlation analysis and the Mann–Whitney test. In addition, with corresponding analysis, this study identified and visualized the differences in altmetrics between 10 social science sub-disciplines. As a result, the papers in the social sciences have greater than one altmetrics presence in greater than 30% of all altmetrics sources. In detail, greater than 90% of the papers had one or more readers in Mendeley, and 50% of the papers had one or more references in Wiki. There was also a strong correlation between the numbers of citations and readers, and open access papers showed a higher altmetrics presence than those that were closed. In terms of differences between disciplines, many psychology articles were registered as a reference on Wiki; many articles in the fields of humanity, society, and politics were drawn to popular discussions through Tweets; and the education field had the highest number of Mendeley readers. This study traced the social influence of highly cited papers in the social sciences that had not been understood before and then statistically interpreted the differences in social impact among the 10 social science disciplines.

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

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.