The Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy

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

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

DOI

  • Fereshteh Didegah, Simon Fraser University
  • ,
  • Mike Thelwall, University of Wolverhampton

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
Volume69
Issue8
Pages (from-to)959-973
Number of pages15
ISSN2330-1635
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

See relations at Aarhus University Citationformats

ID: 137359118