IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v5y2011i3p446-457.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage

Author

Listed:
  • Haustein, Stefanie
  • Siebenlist, Tobias

Abstract

Web 2.0 technologies are finding their way into academics: specialized social bookmarking services allow researchers to store and share scientific literature online. By bookmarking and tagging articles, academic prosumers generate new information about resources, i.e. usage statistics and content description of scientific journals. Given the lack of global download statistics, the authors propose the application of social bookmarking data to journal evaluation. For a set of 45 physics journals all 13,608 bookmarks from CiteULike, Connotea and BibSonomy to documents published between 2004 and 2008 were analyzed. This article explores bookmarking data in STM and examines in how far it can be used to describe the perception of periodicals by the readership. Four basic indicators are defined, which analyze different aspects of usage: Usage Ratio, Usage Diffusion, Article Usage Intensity and Journal Usage Intensity. Tags are analyzed to describe a reader-specific view on journal content.

Suggested Citation

  • Haustein, Stefanie & Siebenlist, Tobias, 2011. "Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 446-457.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:5:y:2011:i:3:p:446-457
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.04.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157711000393
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2011.04.002?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. Jin-kun Wan & Ping-huan Hua & Ronald Rousseau & Xiu-kun Sun, 2010. "The journal download immediacy index (DII): experiences using a Chinese full-text database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(3), pages 555-566, March.
    2. Christian Schloegl & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2004. "Impact and relevance of LIS journals: A scientometric analysis of international and German‐language LIS journals—Citation analysis versus reader survey," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 55(13), pages 1155-1168, November.
    3. Leydesdorff, Loet & Rafols, Ismael, 2011. "Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 87-100.
    4. Jevin West & Theodore Bergstrom & Carl T. Bergstrom, 2010. "Big Macs and Eigenfactor scores: Don't let correlation coefficients fool you," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(9), pages 1800-1807, September.
    5. Christian Schloegl & Juan Gorraiz, 2010. "Comparison of citation and usage indicators: the case of oncology journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(3), pages 567-580, March.
    6. González-Pereira, Borja & Guerrero-Bote, Vicente P. & Moya-Anegón, Félix, 2010. "A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 379-391.
    7. Tibor Braun & Wolfgang Glänzel & András Schubert, 2006. "A Hirsch-type index for journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(1), pages 169-173, October.
    8. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Walters, William H., 2017. "Do subjective journal ratings represent whole journals or typical articles? Unweighted or weighted citation impact?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 730-744.
    2. Xianwen Wang & Zhichao Fang & Xiaoling Sun, 2016. "Usage patterns of scholarly articles on Web of Science: a study on Web of Science usage count," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 917-926, November.
    3. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    4. Wood-Doughty, Alex & Bergstrom, Ted & Steigerwald, Douglas, 2017. "Do download reports reliably measure journal usage? Trusting the fox to count your Hens?," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt1f221007, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    5. Liwen Vaughan & Juan Tang & Rongbin Yang, 2017. "Investigating disciplinary differences in the relationships between citations and downloads," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1533-1545, June.
    6. Bikun Chen, 2018. "Usage pattern comparison of the same scholarly articles between Web of Science (WoS) and Springer," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 519-537, April.
    7. Wolfgang Glänzel & Juan Gorraiz, 2015. "Usage metrics versus altmetrics: confusing terminology?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2161-2164, March.
    8. Juan Gorraiz & Christian Gumpenberger & Christian Schlögl, 2014. "Usage versus citation behaviours in four subject areas," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1077-1095, November.
    9. Wencan Tian & Yongzhen Wang & Zhigang Hu & Ruonan Cai & Guangyao Zhang & Xianwen Wang, 2024. "Does Granger causality exist between article usage and publication counts? A topic-level time-series evidence from IEEE Xplore," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(6), pages 3285-3302, June.
    10. Barbara McGillivray & Mathias Astell, 2019. "The relationship between usage and citations in an open access mega-journal," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 817-838, November.
    11. Mike Thelwall, 2018. "Early Mendeley readers correlate with later citation counts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1231-1240, June.
    12. Muhammad Salman Khan & Muhammad Younas, 2017. "Analyzing readers behavior in downloading articles from IEEE digital library: a study of two selected journals in the field of education," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1523-1537, March.
    13. Mingkun Wei, 2020. "Research on impact evaluation of open access journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1027-1049, February.
    14. Wang, Xianwen & Wang, Zhi & Mao, Wenli & Liu, Chen, 2014. "How far does scientific community look back?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 562-568.
    15. Mingers, John & Yang, Liying, 2017. "Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 323-337.
    16. Mike Thelwall & Stefanie Haustein & Vincent Larivière & Cassidy R Sugimoto, 2013. "Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-7, May.
    17. Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2014. "Relationship between downloads and citations at journal and paper levels, and the influence of language," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1043-1065, November.
    18. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    19. Christian Schlögl & Juan Gorraiz & Christian Gumpenberger & Kris Jack & Peter Kraker, 2014. "Comparison of downloads, citations and readership data for two information systems journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1113-1128, November.
    20. Xu, Shuqi & Mariani, Manuel Sebastian & Lü, Linyuan & Medo, Matúš, 2020. "Unbiased evaluation of ranking metrics reveals consistent performance in science and technology citation data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1).

    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:5:y:2011:i:3:p:446-457. 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.