Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse

Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Standard

Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks. / Didegah, Fereshteh; Thelwall, Mike.

I: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Bind 69, Nr. 8, 2018, s. 959-973.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Harvard

Didegah, F & Thelwall, M 2018, 'Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks', Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, bind 69, nr. 8, s. 959-973. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24028

APA

Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2018). Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(8), 959-973. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24028

CBE

Didegah F, Thelwall M. 2018. Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(8):959-973. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24028

MLA

Didegah, Fereshteh og Mike Thelwall. "Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2018, 69(8). 959-973. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24028

Vancouver

Didegah F, Thelwall M. Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2018;69(8):959-973. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24028

Author

Didegah, Fereshteh ; Thelwall, Mike. / Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks. I: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2018 ; Bind 69, Nr. 8. s. 959-973.

Bibtex

@article{80065c8c548f42d3b8fcafde449d3e2e,
title = "Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks",
abstract = "Counts of tweets and Mendeley user libraries have been proposed as altmetric alternatives to citation counts for the impact assessment of articles. Although both have been investigated to discover whether they correlate with article citations, it is not known whether users tend to tweet or save (in Mendeley) the same kinds of articles that they cite. In response, this article compares pairs of articles that are tweeted, saved to a Mendeley library, or cited by the same user, but possibly a different user for each source. The study analyzes 1,131,318 articles published in 2012, with minimum tweeted (10), saved to Mendeley (100), and cited (10) thresholds. The results show surprisingly minor overall overlaps between the three phenomena. The importance of journals for Twitter and the presence of many bots at different levels of activity suggest that this site has little value for impact altmetrics. The moderate differences between patterns of saving and citation suggest that Mendeley can be used for some types of impact assessments, but sensitivity is needed for underlying differences.",
author = "Fereshteh Didegah and Mike Thelwall",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1002/asi.24028",
language = "English",
volume = "69",
pages = "959--973",
journal = "American Society for Information Science and Technology. Journal",
issn = "2330-1635",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "8",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks

AU - Didegah, Fereshteh

AU - Thelwall, Mike

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Counts of tweets and Mendeley user libraries have been proposed as altmetric alternatives to citation counts for the impact assessment of articles. Although both have been investigated to discover whether they correlate with article citations, it is not known whether users tend to tweet or save (in Mendeley) the same kinds of articles that they cite. In response, this article compares pairs of articles that are tweeted, saved to a Mendeley library, or cited by the same user, but possibly a different user for each source. The study analyzes 1,131,318 articles published in 2012, with minimum tweeted (10), saved to Mendeley (100), and cited (10) thresholds. The results show surprisingly minor overall overlaps between the three phenomena. The importance of journals for Twitter and the presence of many bots at different levels of activity suggest that this site has little value for impact altmetrics. The moderate differences between patterns of saving and citation suggest that Mendeley can be used for some types of impact assessments, but sensitivity is needed for underlying differences.

AB - Counts of tweets and Mendeley user libraries have been proposed as altmetric alternatives to citation counts for the impact assessment of articles. Although both have been investigated to discover whether they correlate with article citations, it is not known whether users tend to tweet or save (in Mendeley) the same kinds of articles that they cite. In response, this article compares pairs of articles that are tweeted, saved to a Mendeley library, or cited by the same user, but possibly a different user for each source. The study analyzes 1,131,318 articles published in 2012, with minimum tweeted (10), saved to Mendeley (100), and cited (10) thresholds. The results show surprisingly minor overall overlaps between the three phenomena. The importance of journals for Twitter and the presence of many bots at different levels of activity suggest that this site has little value for impact altmetrics. The moderate differences between patterns of saving and citation suggest that Mendeley can be used for some types of impact assessments, but sensitivity is needed for underlying differences.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047511036&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/asi.24028

DO - 10.1002/asi.24028

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85047511036

VL - 69

SP - 959

EP - 973

JO - American Society for Information Science and Technology. Journal

JF - American Society for Information Science and Technology. Journal

SN - 2330-1635

IS - 8

ER -