Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community (1304.7300v1)

Abstract: Altmetrics, indices based on social media platforms and tools, have recently emerged as alternative means of measuring scholarly impact. Such indices assume that scholars in fact populate online social environments, and interact with scholarly products there. We tested this assumption by examining the use and coverage of social media environments amongst a sample of bibliometricians. As expected, coverage varied: 82% of articles published by sampled bibliometricians were included in Mendeley libraries, while only 28% were included in CiteULike. Mendeley bookmarking was moderately correlated (.45) with Scopus citation. Over half of respondents asserted that social media tools were affecting their professional lives, although uptake of online tools varied widely. 68% of those surveyed had LinkedIn accounts, while Academia.edu, Mendeley, and ResearchGate each claimed a fifth of respondents. Nearly half of those responding had Twitter accounts, which they used both personally and professionally. Surveyed bibliometricians had mixed opinions on altmetrics' potential; 72% valued download counts, while a third saw potential in tracking articles' influence in blogs, Wikipedia, reference managers, and social media. Altogether, these findings suggest that some online tools are seeing substantial use by bibliometricians, and that they present a potentially valuable source of impact data.

• The paper reveals that 82% of bibliometric documents are bookmarked in Mendeley, establishing its dominance over platforms like CiteULike.
• The study employs literature analysis and surveys of bibliometricians, uncovering a moderate 0.45 correlation between Mendeley bookmarks and Scopus citations.
• The findings suggest that while bibliometricians recognize altmetrics’ potential, actual engagement remains modest, highlighting opportunities for broader integration.

Analysis of Altmetrics Coverage and Usage Within the Bibliometric Community

The paper "Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community" presents a comprehensive examination of the presence and utilization of altmetrics within the field of bibliometrics. Altmetrics, which derive impact metrics from social media and other online platforms, have garnered attention as potential complements to traditional citation analysis by broadening the scope of scholarly impact measurement.

Altmetrics: An Emerging Metric System

The paper explores two fundamental research questions to evaluate the altmetrics landscape: the extent to which bibliometric literature is represented across social media platforms and the engagement of the bibliometric community with these platforms. The authors conduct an empirical paper comprising two methodologies: analysis of literature coverage on platforms such as Mendeley and CiteULike, and a survey directed at bibliometricians who attended the 2012 STI conference in Montréal.

Coverage and Influence on Altmetrics Platforms

The investigation into the coverage of bibliometric papers reveals substantial findings, especially concerning the platform Mendeley. Among 1,136 bibliometrics documents analyzed, 82% were bookmarked in Mendeley, significantly surpassing the 28% coverage in CiteULike. The paper identifies Mendeley as not only the most broadly used platform in terms of coverage but also as having the highest average bookmarks per document, highlighting its prominence in the domain. Moreover, a moderate correlation of 0.45 between Mendeley bookmarks and Scopus citations indicates that altmetrics may capture dimensions of scholarly impact not reflected solely by citation counts.

Engagement of Bibliometricians with Social Media Tools

In addition to coverage statistics, the survey results shed light on how bibliometricians engage with social media tools. With a mixed demographic of respondents, including research scientists and R&D professionals, 63% indicated they use reference management software, with Mendeley being the most utilized tool. Social networks such as LinkedIn were prevalent among the community, used by approximately 68% of respondents, primarily for professional connections. However, platforms with a scholarly focus like Academia.edu and ResearchGate were used less frequently, at about 21% each.

Perceived Potential and Challenges of Altmetrics

Importantly, the majority of surveyed bibliometricians acknowledged the potential of altmetrics, with 86% recognizing their value in author or article evaluation. Sources like article downloads, Wikipedia mentions, and reference manager bookmarks garnered positive perceptions for their utility in altmetrics. Still, the overall actual engagement with these platforms remains modest, signaling room for growth in their integration into research workflows.

Implications and Future Directions

The paper underscores the potential for altmetrics to provide a more holistic view of scholarly impact, encompassing aspects beyond traditional citations. This research implies that platforms like Mendeley can serve as valuable repositories of alternative impact evidence, yet it also calls for broader exploration into the adoption of altmetrics across diverse academic disciplines to validate and expand upon these findings.

Future research should aim to cross-validate the observed trends and examine altmetrics across a wider array of research communities, determining how such metrics can be effectively incorporated into comprehensive impact evaluations. Strategic efforts to bridge the gap between the perceived potential and actual adoption of altmetrics could promote a more nuanced understanding of scholarly influence in the digital age. Overall, this paper provides an essential contribution to the ongoing discourse about altmetrics' role within evolving research evaluation landscapes.