IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v11y2017i2p466-482.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Global science discussed in local altmetrics: Weibo and its comparison with Twitter

Author

Listed:
  • Yu, Houqiang
  • Xu, Shenmeng
  • Xiao, Tingting
  • Hemminger, Brad M.
  • Yang, Siluo

Abstract

Local altmetrics is currently an integral part of the altmetrics landscape. This paper aims to investigate the characteristics of microblog altmetrics of the Chinese microblog platform, Weibo, to shed light on cultural differences and draw attention to local altmetrics in developing countries. The analysis is based on 4.4 million records provided by Altmetric.com. Data collected are from March 2014 to July 2015. It is found that Weibo users discuss global science, more actively compared with several international altmetrics sources. Statistical results show strong evidence of the immediacy advantage of metrics based on Weibo as well as Twitter and the general altmetrics over citations. Distribution of Weibo altmetrics on the article level, source level and discipline level are highly skewed. Overall, compared with Twitter, Weibo altmetrics present similar distributions, with some minor variations. To better understand how and why Weibo users discuss global scientific articles, the top weiboed articles, sources and disciplines are identified and further explored. Our content analysis shows that the common motivation of scientific weibos is to disseminate or discuss the articles because they are interesting, surprising, academically useful or practically useful. Conclusion of articles is the most frequently mentioned element in scientific weibos. In addition, different from Twitter, Weibo users have a preference for traditional prestigious journals.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu, Houqiang & Xu, Shenmeng & Xiao, Tingting & Hemminger, Brad M. & Yang, Siluo, 2017. "Global science discussed in local altmetrics: Weibo and its comparison with Twitter," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 466-482.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:11:y:2017:i:2:p:466-482
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.02.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157716301961
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2017.02.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ju-fang Shao & Hui-yun Shen, 2012. "Research assessment and monetary rewards: the overemphasized impact factor in China," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 199-203, June.
    2. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2015. "ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(5), pages 876-889, May.
    3. Unknown, 2014. "Media Coverage 2014," 2014: Ethics, Efficiency and Food Security: Feeding the 9 Billion, Well, 26-28 August 2014 225573, Crawford Fund.
    4. Kim Holmberg & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1027-1042, November.
    5. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall & Mahshid Abdoli, 2012. "The role of online videos in research communication: A content analysis of YouTube videos cited in academic publications," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(9), pages 1710-1727, September.
    6. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall & Mahshid Abdoli, 2012. "The role of online videos in research communication: A content analysis of YouTube videos cited in academic publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(9), pages 1710-1727, September.
    7. Stefanie Haustein & Isabella Peters & Judit Bar-Ilan & Jason Priem & Hadas Shema & Jens Terliesner, 2014. "Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1145-1163, November.
    8. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall, 2013. "Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 383-395, November.
    9. Stefanie Haustein & Timothy D. Bowman & Kim Holmberg & Andrew Tsou & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Vincent Larivière, 2016. "Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot” accounts on Twitter," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(1), pages 232-238, January.
    10. Hadas Shema & Judit Bar-Ilan & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(5), pages 1018-1027, May.
    11. Per O. Seglen, 1992. "The skewness of science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(9), pages 628-638, October.
    12. Stefanie Haustein & Isabella Peters & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Mike Thelwall & Vincent Larivière, 2014. "Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(4), pages 656-669, April.
    13. Tim Brody & Stevan Harnad & Leslie Carr, 2006. "Earlier Web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(8), pages 1060-1072, June.
    14. Jason Priem, 2013. "Beyond the paper," Nature, Nature, vol. 495(7442), pages 437-440, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kaltrina Nuredini, 2021. "Investigating Altmetric Information For The Top 1000 Journals From Handelsblatt Ranking In Economic And Business Studies," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1315-1343, December.
    2. Ying Guo & Xiantao Xiao, 2022. "Author-level altmetrics for the evaluation of Chinese scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 973-990, February.
    3. Anwar Said & Timothy D. Bowman & Rabeeh Ayaz Abbasi & Naif Radi Aljohani & Saeed-Ul Hassan & Raheel Nawaz, 2019. "Mining network-level properties of Twitter altmetrics data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 217-235, July.
    4. Yu, Houqiang & Xiao, Tingting & Xu, Shenmeng & Wang, Yuefen, 2019. "Who posts scientific tweets? An investigation into the productivity, locations, and identities of scientific tweeters," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 841-855.
    5. Zhichao Fang & Rodrigo Costas, 2020. "Studying the accumulation velocity of altmetric data tracked by Altmetric.com," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1077-1101, May.
    6. Yu, Houqiang & Xu, Shenmeng & Xiao, Tingting, 2018. "Is there Lingua Franca in informal scientific communication? Evidence from language distribution of scientific tweets," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 605-617.
    7. Shenmeng Xu & Houqiang Yu & Bradley M. Hemminger & Xie Dong, 2018. "Who, what, why? An exploration of JoVE scientific video publications in tweets," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 845-856, November.
    8. Houqiang Yu & Biegzat Murat & Longfei Li & Tingting Xiao, 2021. "How accurate are Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data? A comparative content analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4437-4463, May.
    9. Wenwei Luo & Ilene R. Berson & Michael J. Berson, 2023. "A Social Media Analysis of the Experiences of Chinese Early Childhood Educators and Families with Young Children during COVID-19," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-23, January.
    10. Zhichao Fang & Rodrigo Costas & Wencan Tian & Xianwen Wang & Paul Wouters, 2021. "How is science clicked on Twitter? Click metrics for Bitly short links to scientific publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(7), pages 918-932, July.
    11. Rafael Repiso & Antonio Castillo-Esparcia & Daniel Torres-Salinas, 2019. "Altmetrics, alternative indicators for Web of Science Communication studies journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 941-958, May.
    12. Dong, Xuefan & Lian, Ying, 2021. "A review of social media-based public opinion analyses: Challenges and recommendations," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    13. Ting Cong & Zhichao Fang & Rodrigo Costas, 2022. "WeChat uptake of chinese scholarly journals: an analysis of CSSCI-indexed journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7091-7110, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 895-903.
    2. Saeed-Ul Hassan & Mubashir Imran & Uzair Gillani & Naif Radi Aljohani & Timothy D. Bowman & Fereshteh Didegah, 2017. "Measuring social media activity of scientific literature: an exhaustive comparison of scopus and novel altmetrics big data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1037-1057, November.
    3. Mojisola Erdt & Aarthy Nagarajan & Sei-Ching Joanna Sin & Yin-Leng Theng, 2016. "Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1117-1166, November.
    4. Isidro F. Aguillo, 2020. "Altmetrics of the Open Access Institutional Repositories: a webometrics approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1181-1192, June.
    5. Solanki Gupta & Vivek Kumar Singh & Sumit Kumar Banshal, 2024. "Altmetric data quality analysis using Benford’s law," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4597-4621, July.
    6. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall & Stefanie Haustein & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(9), pages 1832-1846, September.
    7. Lutz Bornmann, 2015. "Alternative metrics in scientometrics: a meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 1123-1144, June.
    8. Shenmeng Xu & Houqiang Yu & Bradley M. Hemminger & Xie Dong, 2018. "Who, what, why? An exploration of JoVE scientific video publications in tweets," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 845-856, November.
    9. Liwei Zhang & Jue Wang, 2018. "Why highly cited articles are not highly tweeted? A biology case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 495-509, October.
    10. Banshal, Sumit Kumar & Gupta, Solanki & Lathabai, Hiran H & Singh, Vivek Kumar, 2022. "Power Laws in altmetrics: An empirical analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    11. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "Research Interest: another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 351-360, July.
    12. Sergio Copiello & Pietro Bonifaci, 2019. "ResearchGate Score, full-text research items, and full-text reads: a follow-up study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1255-1262, May.
    13. Yu, Houqiang & Xiao, Tingting & Xu, Shenmeng & Wang, Yuefen, 2019. "Who posts scientific tweets? An investigation into the productivity, locations, and identities of scientific tweeters," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 841-855.
    14. Sergio Copiello & Pietro Bonifaci, 2018. "A few remarks on ResearchGate score and academic reputation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(1), pages 301-306, January.
    15. Thelwall, Mike & Wilson, Paul, 2014. "Regression for citation data: An evaluation of different methods," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 963-971.
    16. Zhiqi Wang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Yue Chen, 2020. "The impact of preprints in Library and Information Science: an analysis of citations, usage and social attention indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1403-1423, November.
    17. Angel Meseguer-Martinez & Alejandro Ros-Galvez & Alfonso Rosa-Garcia & Jose Antonio Catalan-Alarcon, 2019. "Online video impact of world class universities," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(3), pages 519-532, September.
    18. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha & Mahshid Abdoli & Emma Stuart & Meiko Makita & Paul Wilson & Jonathan Levitt, 2023. "Do altmetric scores reflect article quality? Evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(5), pages 582-593, May.
    19. Yu Liu & Dan Lin & Xiujuan Xu & Shimin Shan & Quan Z. Sheng, 2018. "Multi-views on Nature Index of Chinese academic institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 823-837, March.
    20. Houqiang Yu, 2017. "Context of altmetrics data matters: an investigation of count type and user category," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 267-283, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:11:y:2017:i:2:p:466-482. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.