Affiliation:
1. Statistical Cybermetrics and Research Evaluation Group University of Wolverhampton Wolverhampton UK
Abstract
AbstractAltmetrics are web‐based quantitative impact or attention indicators for academic articles that have been proposed to supplement citation counts. This article reports the first assessment of the extent to which mature altmetrics from Altmetric.com and Mendeley associate with individual article quality scores. It exploits expert norm‐referenced peer review scores from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 for 67,030+ journal articles in all fields 2014–2017/2018, split into 34 broadly field‐based Units of Assessment (UoAs). Altmetrics correlated more strongly with research quality than previously found, although less strongly than raw and field normalized Scopus citation counts. Surprisingly, field normalizing citation counts can reduce their strength as a quality indicator for articles in a single field. For most UoAs, Mendeley reader counts are the best altmetric (e.g., three Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.5), tweet counts are also a moderate strength indicator in eight UoAs (Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.3), ahead of news (eight correlations above 0.3, but generally weaker), blogs (five correlations above 0.3), and Facebook (three correlations above 0.3) citations, at least in the United Kingdom. In general, altmetrics are the strongest indicators of research quality in the health and physical sciences and weakest in the arts and humanities.
Funder
Research England
Department for the Economy
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Information Systems and Management,Computer Networks and Communications,Information Systems
Reference45 articles.
1. Early indicators of scientific impact: Predicting citations with altmetrics
2. Altmetric. (2022a).Our sources.https://www.altmetric.com/about-our-data/our-sources-2/
3. Altmetric. (2022b).Attention sources coverage dates.https://help.altmetric.com/support/solutions/articles/6000240455-attention-sources-coverage-dates
4. Investigating familiarity and usage of traditional metrics and altmetrics
5. Peer review, bibliometrics and altmetrics ‐ Do we need them all?
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献