Measuring research impact is important for ranking publications in academic search engines and for research evaluation. Social media metrics or altmetrics measure the impact of scientific work based on social media activity. Altmetrics are complementary to traditional, citation-based metrics, e.g. allowing the assessment of new publications for which citations are not yet available. Despite the increasing importance of altmetrics, their characteristics are not well understood: Until now it has not been researched what kind of researchers are actively using which social media services and why - important questions for scientific impact prediction. Based on a survey among 3,430 scientists, we uncover previously unknown and significant differences between social media services: We identify services which attract young and experienced researchers, respectively, and detect differences in usage motivations. Our findings have direct implications for the future design of altmetrics for scientific impact prediction.
Scholars use social media for various reasons. Van Noorden @cite_26 identified multiple categories of motivations for scholarly social media use: and . Jordan @cite_6 identified motivation categories by manually coding questions asked by researchers on Academia.edu. It is well known that a small minority of active social media users is responsible for a large share of activities @cite_2 @cite_18 . @cite_10 give an overview of multiple studies on various social media sites and Kunegis @cite_0 shows statistics for dozens of social networks, all confirming the effect. To the best of our knowledge, there is no study on the demographics and motivations of scholarly users on social media.
@cite_18 @cite_26 @cite_6 @cite_0 @cite_2 @cite_10
1981432861 2518646621 2278069886 2169882007
The emergence of social media has created new ways to publish scientific work, foster collaboration, and build professional connections in the research community. The rich data collected in social media platforms has provided new opportunities for assessing scholars' impact other than the traditional citation-based approach. In this paper, we investigate the measures of scholars' influence in academic social media platforms, taking both academic and social impact into account. A real-life dataset collected from Mendeley is used to apply different influence metrics. We first assess the academic influence of scholars based on the scientific impact of their publications using three different measures. Then we investigate their social influence using network centrality metrics. The experiments show that top influencers with high academic impact tend to be senior scholars with many coauthors. Furthermore, academic influence and social influence measures do not strongly correlate with each other, and thus scholars with high academic impact are not necessarily influential from a social point of view. Adding the social dimension could enhance the traditional impact metrics that only take academic influence into account. Social media has become integrated into the fabric of the scholarly communication system in fundamental ways, principally through scholarly use of social media platforms and the promotion of new indicators on the basis of interactions with these platforms. Research and scholarship in this area has accelerated since the coining and subsequent advocacy for altmetrics—that is, research indicators based on social media activity. This review provides an extensive account of the state-of-the art in both scholarly use of social media and altmetrics. The review consists of 2 main parts: the first examines the use of social media in academia, reviewing the various functions these platforms have in the scholarly communication process and the factors that affect this use. The second part reviews empirical studies of altmetrics, discussing the various interpretations of altmetrics, data collection and methodological limitations, and differences according to platform. The review ends with a critical discussion of the implications of this transformation in the scholarly communication system. The rise of social media has led to an explosion in the number of possible sites users can join. However, this same profusion of social media sites has made it nearly impossible for users to actively engage in all of them simultaneously. Accordingly, users must make choices about which sites to use or to neglect. In this paper, we study users that have joined multiple sites. We study how individuals are distributed across sites, the way they select sites to join, and behavioral patterns they exhibit while selecting sites. Our study demonstrates that while users have a tendency to join the most popular or trendiest sites, this does not fully explain users' selections. We demonstrate that peer pressure also influences the decisions users make about joining emerging sites. There were 20 scholars interviewed about their citation motives in recently published articles. Their 437 citations were scaled along 1 or more of the following 7 citer motives: currency, negative credit, operational information, persuasiveness, positive credit, reader alert, and social consensus. The majority (70.7 ) of the references were attributed to more than 1 motive. Analysis of the clustering of the citer motives showed 3 groupings: (1) persuasiveness, positive credit, currency, and social consensus, (2) negative credit, and (3) reader alert and operational information. Negative credit references were often found to be used with a countervailing positive credit, currency, or social consensus reference. This is considered to be empirical evidence of MacRoberts and MacRoberts' [8] hypothesis that scholars dissemble when giving negative references. © 1986 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.