Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society (한국도서관정보학회지)

Korean Library and Information Science Society (한국도서관정보학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Altmetrics of the Papers of Library and Information Science Researchers Published in International Journals

국제 학술지에 발표된 문헌정보학 연구자 논문의 알트메트릭스에 관한 연구

  • 조재인 (인천대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2022.11.21
  • Accepted : 2022.12.11
  • Published : 2022.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Altmetrics is an alternative impact evaluation index that evaluates the social interest in the research performance of individuals or institutions in universities, research institutions, and research fund support institutions. This study empirically analyzed what kind of attention a papers of domestic library and information science researchers published in an international academic journal was receiving in the international community using Altmetric explorer. As a result of the analysis, 230 papers were tracked. The average Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) was 6.63, but there were 2 papers that received overwhelming attention (over 170 points) as they were mentioned in news report and Twitter. Second, there was a tendency for high AAS to appear in cases where a domestic researcher participated as a co-author and the main author belonged to an overseas institution, and in the case where the research funds were supported by foreign government agencies. In addition to the field of the library information science or information system, the papers classified as the field of public health service and education showed high AAS, and it was confirmed that these papers were published in the journals of various fields such as life science. Finally, it was confirmed that there was a weak correlation of r =0.25 between the AAS and the number of citations of the analyzed paper, but a strong correlation of r =0.68 between the number of Mendeley readers and the number of citations.

알트메트릭스는 출판사, 대학, 연구기관, 연구비지원기관 등에서 개인이나 기관의 연구 성과에 대한 사회적 관심을 평가하는 대체적 영향력 평가 지표이다. 본 연구는 국내 문헌정보학 연구자가 국제학술지에 발표한 논문이 국제사회에서 어떠한 관심을 받고 있는지 Altmetric explorer를 활용해 실증 분석하였다. 분석 결과, 알트메트릭스 트래킹(tracking)에 성공한 240편의 평균 AAS(Altmetric Attention Score)는 6.5점으로 나타났다. 분석 대상 논문 중 언론매체에 언급되거나 트윗되면서 170점 이상의 압도적 주목을 받은 논문이 존재하였으나, 높은 AAS는 소수의 논문에만 집중되는 현상이 나타났다. 두 번째, 국내 연구자가 공동연구자로 참여하고 주저자는 해외 기관 소속인 경우와 해외 정부기관이 지원한 논문이 국제사회의 더 많은 주목을 받는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 '정보및컴퓨터과학' 이외에도 '의학및건강과학', '교육학' 등으로 분류된 논문에서 높은 AAS가 나타났으며 이 논문은 의생명 등 다양한 분야의 저널에 수록된 것으로 확인되었다. 마지막으로 분석 대상 논문의 AAS와 피인용 횟수 간에는 r =0.25의 약한 상관성이 존재하였으나 Mendeley 독자수와 피인용 횟수 간에는 r =0.68의 강한 상관성이 존재함을 확인하였다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

본 논문은 2022년도 인천대학교 자체연구비 지원으로 수행되었음.

References

  1. Cho, Jane (2017). Study on readers about library and information science fields' articles by analyzing Mendeley. Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society (JKLISS), 48(1), 77-97. https://doi.org/10.16981/kliss.48.1.201703.77
  2. Cho, Jane (2022). A study on the effect of altmetrics about academic papers on citations and moderating effect of Open Access. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 56(2), 35-55.
  3. Sato, S. & Yoshida, M. (2017). Availability of altmetrics for articles in Japanese society journals. Journal of Information and Knowledge Society, 27(1), 23-42. Available: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsik/27/1/27_2017_009/_pdf
  4. Altmetric (2021). Required metadata for content tracking. Available: https://help.altmetric.com/support/solutions/articles/6000240582-required-metadata-for-content-tracking
  5. Banshal, S. K., Singh, V. K., & Muhuri, P. K. (2021). Can altmetric mentions predict later citations? A test of validity on data from ResearchGate and three social media platforms. Online Information Review, 45(3), 517-536. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-11-2019-0364
  6. Bornmann, L. (2015). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: a meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics, 103, 1123-1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1565-y
  7. Cho, J. (2021). Altmetrics analysis of highly cited academic papers in the feld of library and information science. Scientometrics, 126, 7623-7635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04084-w
  8. Erfanmanesh, M. (2017). The presence of Iranian information science and library science articles in social media: an altmetric study. Iranian Journal of Information Processing & Management, 32, 349-373.
  9. Fang, Z. & Costas, R. (2020). Studying the accumulation velocity of altmetric data tracked by Altmetric.com. SCIENTOMETRICS, 123(2), 1077-1101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03405-9
  10. Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C. & Schlogl, C. (2014). Usage versus citation behaviours in four subject areas. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1077-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1271-1
  11. Hassan, S., Imran, M., Gillani, U., Aljohani, N. R., Bowman, T. D., & Didegah, F. (2017). Measuring social media activity of scientific literature: an exhaustive comparison of Scopus and novel altmetrics big data. Scientometrics, 113(2), 1037-1057. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2512-x
  12. Kolahi, J., Khazaei, S., Iranmanesh, P., Kim, J., Bang, H., & Khademi, A. (2021). Meta-Analysis of Correlations between Altmetric Attention Score and Citations in Health Sciences. BioMed Research International, 2021, 6680764. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6680764
  13. Konkiel, S. (2019). Best practices for tracking altmetrics for your digital library content. Available: https://www.altmetric.com/blog/best-practices-for-tracking-altmetrics-for-your-digital-library-content/
  14. Kurniasih, N. (2016). The Implementation of Altmetrics in Library as an Alternative Measurement Method for Scholarly Article Impact in Social Web Ecosystem. Proceedings of International Conference on Science Mapping and the Development of Science, Yogyakarta, 20-21 April 2016.
  15. Lepage, M. (2022, May 26). Interview by author [Email coversation].
  16. LibGuides community. https://community.libguides.com/
  17. Liu, C. & Huang, M. H. (2022). Exploring the relationships between altmetric counts and citations of papers in different academic fields based on co-occurrence analysis. Scientometrics, 127, 4939-4958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04456-w
  18. Liu, X., Wei, Y., & Zhao, Z. (2020). How researchers view altmetrics: an investigation of ISSI participants. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 72(3), 361-378. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajim-07-2019-0165
  19. Luo, H., Sun, A., Erdt, M., Ramkumar, A. S., & Theng, Y. L. (2018). Exploring prestigious citations sourced from top universities in bibliometrics and altmetrics: a case study in the computer science discipline. Scientometrics, 114(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2571-z
  20. NatCen (2020). Experiences ofAdvanced DriverAssistance Systems amongst Older Drivers Available: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/897693/experiences-of-advanced-driver-assistance-systemsamongst-older-drivers.pdf
  21. Nath, A. & Jana, S. (2021). A scientometric review of global altmetrics research. Science & Technology Libraries, 40(3), 325-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2021.1918607
  22. Ortega, L. (2018). The life cycle of altmetric impact: a longitudinal study of six metrics from PlumX. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 579-589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.06.001
  23. Ortega L. (2018). Disciplinary differences of the impact of altmetric. FEMS Microbiol Lett, 365(7), 1-6.
  24. Ouchi, A., Saberi, M. K., Ansari, N., Hashempour, L., & Isfandyari-Moghaddam, A. (2019). Do altmetrics correlate with citations? A study based on the 1,000 most-cited articles. Information Discovery and Delivery, 47(4), 192-202. https://doi.org/10.1108/idd-07-2019-0050
  25. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: a manifesto, Available: http://altmetrics.org/manifesto
  26. Saberi, M. K. & Ekhtiyari, F. (2019). Usage, captures, mentions, social media and citations of LIS highly cited papers: an altmetrics study. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 20(1), 37-47. https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-10-2018-0025
  27. Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 126, 5113-5142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5
  28. Sutton, S., Miles, R., & Konkiel, S. (2018). Awareness of Altmetrics among LIS Scholars and Faculty. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 59(1-2), 33-47. https://doi.org/10.3138/jelis.59.1-2.05
  29. Tang, Y., Tseng, H., & Vann, C. (2020). Unwrap citation count, Altmetric Attention Score and Mendeley readership status of highly cited articles in the top-tier LIS journals. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 69(8-9), 653-664. https://doi.org/10.1108/gkmc-01-2020-0005
  30. Thelwall, M. (2017). Mendeley reader counts offer early evidence of the scholarly impact of academic articles (1/17/2017), Available: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/01/17/mendeley-reader-counts-offer-early-evidence-of-the-scholarly-impact-of-academic-articles/
  31. Thelwall, M. (2020). Mendeley reader counts for US computer science conference papers and journal articles. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 347-359. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00010
  32. Thelwall, M. & Nevill, T. (2018), Could scientists use Altmetric.com scores to predict longer term citation counts?. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 237-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.008
  33. University of Colorado School of Medicine. (2016). Guide To Preparing A Dossier For Promotion Or Tenure, Available: https://www.ucdenver.edu/docs/librariesprovider173/default-document-library/dossierbuildingguidemay2016.pdf?sfvrsn=96f858b9_2
  34. Vaughan, L., Tang, J., & Yang, R. (2017). Investigating disciplinary differences in the relationships between citations and downloads. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1533-1545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2308-z
  35. Vilchez-Roman, C., Huaman-Delgado, F., & Alhuay-Quispe, J. (2020). Social dimension activates the usage and academic impact of Open Access publications in Andean countries: a structural modeling-based approach. Information Development, 37(2), 209-220.
  36. Wang, X., Fang, Z., & Guo, X. (2016). Tracking the digital footprints to scholarly articles from social media. Scientometrics, 109, 1365-1376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2086-z
  37. Wikipedia (2018). Engagement marketing: Difference between revisions. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=823479412#altmetric_citation_82840f12-26c3-4644-b160-33c8e8f26e71
  38. Winter, J. C. F. (2015). The relationship between tweets, citations, and article views for PLOS ONE articles. Scientometrics, 102, 1773-1779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1445-x
  39. Ye, Y. E., Na, J. C., & Oh, P. (2022). Are automated accounts driving scholarly communication on twitter? a case study of dissemination of COVID-19 publications. Scientometrics, 127(5), 2151-2172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04343-4
  40. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014). How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of 'alternative metrics' in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1491-1513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1264-0