نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش شناسی. دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی. دانشگاه شهید چمران. اهواز. ایران

2 گروه کتابداری و اطلاع رسانی پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی بوشهر، بوشهر، ایران

3 استادیار آمار زیستی، گروه و آمار زیستی و اپیدمیولوژی، دانشکده بهداشت، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی بوشهر، بوشهر، ایران

4 دانشیار. گروه کتابداری و اطلاع رسانی پزشکی. دانشگاه علوم پزشکی بوشهر. بوشهر. ایران

چکیده

Background and Objectives: Altmetrics enable monitoring, tracking, and evaluating the role of authors and scientific and research publications in line with citations. Therefore, the present study aimed to determine the effects of altmetrics on Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) of articles published about osteoporosis by Iranian researchers and indexed in Scopus during 2008-2017
Methodology: This study was a descriptive survey and the research population included all the articles on osteoporosis, as a keyword by affiliated authors of Iran, indexed in Scopus during 2008-2017. Based on the initial search, 512 articles were retrieved on February 25, 2018. In addition, the cut-off point was set to six, implying that all the articles with more than six citations were selected as samples. In this regard, 114 articles received at least six citations, and the FWCI for each of these articles was separately extracted from the Scopus database. Subsequently, PlumX data for these articles were manually extracted in five categories of Usage, Captures, Mentions, social media, and Citations. Finally, these data were analyzed using the statistical software R, version 3.3.1.
Findings: Among the examined categories, Usage with the highest mean (216.482 ±468.081) was significantly different from the other categories. However, mentions (13.271±23.478) was least welcomed by users. Besides, among the studied metrics, ‘Exports-Saves’ (p=0.022), ‘Citation Indexes’ in CrossRef (p=0.041), ‘Time’ (p>0.001), and ‘Citation Indexes’ in Scopus (p>0.001) had a positive and significant correlation with FWCI.
Discussion: In general, the average FWCI increased by an increase in ‘Citation Indexes’ (in Scopus and CrossRef), ‘Exports-Saves’, and publication time. Therefore, it is recommended that universities, institutes, and research centers be made aware of the importance of researchers’ presence and membership in social networks. This increases the visibility of their research, and thus they can receive enough feedback to evaluate their works.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Effects of Altmetrics on Field-Weighted Citation Impact: A Case Study of Iranian Researchers’ Osteoporosis Articles (2008-2017)

نویسندگان [English]

  • sara dakhesh 1
  • Elham Rezaei 2
  • Marzieh Mahmoodi 3
  • Ali Hamidi 4

1 PhD Candidate in Knowledge and Information Science, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran.

2 BSc, Medical Library and Information Sciences. Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran

3 Assistant Professor of Biostatistics, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Health, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran.

4 Associate Professor, Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran

چکیده [English]

Background and Objectives: Altmetrics enable monitoring, tracking, and evaluating the role of authors and scientific and research publications in line with citations. Therefore, the present study aimed to determine the effects of altmetrics on Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) of articles published about osteoporosis by Iranian researchers and indexed in Scopus during 2008-2017
Methodology: This study was a descriptive survey and the research population included all the articles on osteoporosis, as a keyword by affiliated authors of Iran, indexed in Scopus during 2008-2017. Based on the initial search, 512 articles were retrieved on February 25, 2018. In addition, the cut-off point was set to six, implying that all the articles with more than six citations were selected as samples. In this regard, 114 articles received at least six citations, and the FWCI for each of these articles was separately extracted from the Scopus database. Subsequently, PlumX data for these articles were manually extracted in five categories of Usage, Captures, Mentions, social media, and Citations. Finally, these data were analyzed using the statistical software R, version 3.3.1.
Findings: Among the examined categories, Usage with the highest mean (216.482 ±468.081) was significantly different from the other categories. However, mentions (13.271±23.478) was least welcomed by users. Besides, among the studied metrics, ‘Exports-Saves’ (p=0.022), ‘Citation Indexes’ in CrossRef (p=0.041), ‘Time’ (p>0.001), and ‘Citation Indexes’ in Scopus (p>0.001) had a positive and significant correlation with FWCI.
Discussion: In general, the average FWCI increased by an increase in ‘Citation Indexes’ (in Scopus and CrossRef), ‘Exports-Saves’, and publication time. Therefore, it is recommended that universities, institutes, and research centers be made aware of the importance of researchers’ presence and membership in social networks. This increases the visibility of their research, and thus they can receive enough feedback to evaluate their works.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Scientometrics
  • Altmetrics
  • Social networks
  • Field-Weighted Citation Impact
  • Osteoporosis
Akella, A. P., Alhoori, H., Kondamudi, P. R., Freeman, C., & Zhou, H. (2021). Early indicators of scientific impact: Predicting citations with altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 15(2), 101128. doi: arxiv-2012.13599
Asaad, M., Howell, S. M., Rajesh, A., Meaike, J., & Tran, N. V. (2020). Altmetrics in Plastic Surgery Journals: Does It Correlate With Citation Count?. Aesthetic Surgery Journal40(11), NP628-NP635. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjaa158
Asadi Shavaki, M., & Salehi, L. (2016). Knowledge, belief and practice among elderly about osteoporosis based on Health Belief Model in Karaj city in 2014. Scientific Journal of Hamadan Nursing & Midwifery Faculty, 24(2), 86-97. doi: 10.20286/nmj-24023
Banshal, S. K., Singh, V. K., Kaderye, G., Muhuri, P. K., & Sánchez, B. P. (2018). An altmetric analysis of scholarly articles from India. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems34(5), 3111-3118. doi:10.3233/JIFS-169495
Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars' visibility on the social Web. arXiv preprint arXiv:1205.5611.
Bong, Y., & Ale Ebrahim, N. (2017). The rise of alternative metrics (altmetrics) for research impact measurement. Asia Research News.
Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of informetrics8(4), 895-903. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.005
Colledge, L., & Verlinde, R. (2014). Scival metrics guidebook. Netherlands: Elsevier.
Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015). Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology66(10), 2003-2019. doi:10.1002/asi.23309
Donato, H. (2014). Traditional and alternative metrics: The full story of impact. Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia, 20(1), 1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.rppnen.2013.11.001
Ebrahimy, S., Setareh, F., & HosseinChari, M. (2016). Assessing the relationship between the alternative metrics of visibility and social bookmarking with citation index in PLOS Altmetrics. Iranian Journal of Information Processing Management, 31(3), 845-864.
Holmberg, K. J. (2015). Altmetrics for information professionals: Past, present and future: Chandos Publishing.
Huang, W., Wang, P., & Wu, Q. (2018). A correlation comparison between Altmetric Attention Scores and citations for six PLOS journals. PloS one13(4), e0194962. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0194962
Kastner, M., Sawka, A. M., Hamid, J., Chen, M., Thorpe, K., Chignell, M., . . . Straus, S. E. (2014). A knowledge translation tool improved osteoporosis disease management in primary care: an interrupted time series analysis. Implementation Science, 9(1), 109. doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0109-9
Konkiel, S. (2013). Altmetrics. A 21st-century solution to determining research quality. Information Today, 37(4).
Lehane, D. J., & Black, C. S. (2020). Can altmetrics predict future citation counts in critical care medicine publications?. Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 1751143720903240. doi: 10.1177/1751143720903240
MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (2010). Problems of citation analysis: A study of uncited and seldom‐cited influences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1002/asi.21228
McGillivray, B., & Astell, M. (2019). The relationship between usage and citations in an open access mega-journal. Scientometrics121(2), 817-838. doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03228-3
Mullins, C. H., Boyd, C. J., & Corey, B. L. (2020). Examining the Correlation Between Altmetric Score and Citations in the General Surgery Literature. Journal of Surgical Research, 248, 159-164. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.11.008
Nieder, C., Dalhaug, A., & Aandahl, G. (2013). Correlation between article download and citation figures for highly accessed articles from five open access oncology journals. SpringerPlus, 2(1), 261. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-261
Nuzzolese, A. G., Ciancarini, P., Gangemi, A., Peroni, S., Poggi, F., & Presutti, V. (2019). Do altmetrics work for assessing research quality? Scientometrics, 118(2), 539-562. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2988-z
Park, D.-I., Choi-Kwon, S., & Han, K. (2015). Health behaviors of Korean female nursing students in relation to obesity and osteoporosis. Nursing Outlook, 63(4), 504-511. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2015.02.001
Ruan, Q. Z., Chen, A. D., Cohen, J. B., Singhal, D., Lin, S. J., & Lee, B. T. (2018). Alternative metrics of scholarly output: the relationship among altmetric score, Mendeley reader score, citations, and downloads in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Plastic and reconstructive surgery141(3), 801-809. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000004128
Salajegheh, M., & Diari, S. (2016). The Relationship between Altmetrics and SNIP, SJR, Eigenfactor and IF of Medical Science Journals. National Studies on Librarianship and Information Organization, 27(2), 167-180.
Schloegl, C., & Gorraiz, J. (2010). Comparison of citation and usage indicators: the case of oncology journals. Scientometrics, 82(3), 567-580. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0172-1
Serrano-López, A. E., Ingwersen, P., & Sanz-Casado, E. (2017). Wind power research in Wikipedia: Does Wikipedia demonstrate direct influence of research publications and can it be used as adequate source in research evaluation?. Scientometrics112(3), 1471-1488. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2447-2
Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30(1), 83-106
Soleymanian, A., Niknami, S., Hajizadeh, E., Shojaeizadeh, D., & Montazeri, A. (2014). Development and validation of a health belief model-based instrument for measuring factors influencing exercise behaviors to prevent osteoporosis in pre-menopausal women (HOPE). BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 15(1), 61. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-61
Thelwall, M. (2018). Early Mendeley readers correlate with later citation counts. Scientometrics, 1-10. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2715-9
Torres-Salinas, D., Cabezas-Clavijo, Á., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2013). Altmetrics: New indicators for scientific communication in web 2.0. arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.6595. doi: 10.3916/C41-2013-05
Vaughan, L., Tang, J., & Yang, R. (2017). Investigating disciplinary differences in the relationships between citations and downloads. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1533-1545. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2308-z
Zahedi, Z. (2015). Analyzing readerships of International Iranian publications in Mendeley: an altmetrics study. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.01342. doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1400482