IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0035869.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Blogs and the Discussion of Scholarly Information

Author

Listed:
  • Hadas Shema
  • Judit Bar-Ilan
  • Mike Thelwall

Abstract

The research blog has become a popular mechanism for the quick discussion of scholarly information. However, unlike peer-reviewed journals, the characteristics of this form of scientific discourse are not well understood, for example in terms of the spread of blogger levels of education, gender and institutional affiliations. In this paper we fill this gap by analyzing a sample of blog posts discussing science via an aggregator called ResearchBlogging.org (RB). ResearchBlogging.org aggregates posts based on peer-reviewed research and allows bloggers to cite their sources in a scholarly manner. We studied the bloggers, blog posts and referenced journals of bloggers who posted at least 20 items. We found that RB bloggers show a preference for papers from high-impact journals and blog mostly about research in the life and behavioral sciences. The most frequently referenced journal sources in the sample were: Science, Nature, PNAS and PLoS One. Most of the bloggers in our sample had active Twitter accounts connected with their blogs, and at least 90% of these accounts connect to at least one other RB-related Twitter account. The average RB blogger in our sample is male, either a graduate student or has been awarded a PhD and blogs under his own name.

Suggested Citation

  • Hadas Shema & Judit Bar-Ilan & Mike Thelwall, 2012. "Research Blogs and the Discussion of Scholarly Information," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-8, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0035869
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035869
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035869
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035869&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0035869?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liwen Vaughan & Debora Shaw, 2005. "Web citation data for impact assessment: A comparison of four science disciplines," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 56(10), pages 1075-1087, August.
    2. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall, 2007. "How is science cited on the Web? A classification of google unique Web citations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(11), pages 1631-1644, September.
    3. Liwen Vaughan & Debora Shaw, 2003. "Bibliographic and Web citations: What is the difference?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(14), pages 1313-1322, December.
    4. Shelley A Batts & Nicholas J Anthis & Tara C Smith, 2008. "Advancing Science through Conversations: Bridging the Gap between Blogs and the Academy," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-5, September.
    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. 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.

    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. Amalia Mas-Bleda & Mike Thelwall, 2016. "Can alternative indicators overcome language biases in citation counts? A comparison of Spanish and UK research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2007-2030, December.
    2. Mike Thelwall, 2012. "Journal impact evaluation: a webometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 429-441, August.
    3. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall, 2008. "Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 273-294, February.
    4. Liwen Vaughan & Debora Shaw, 2008. "A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from web sources," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 317-330, February.
    5. Kousha, Kayvan & Thelwall, Mike & Rezaie, Somayeh, 2010. "Using the Web for research evaluation: The Integrated Online Impact indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 124-135.
    6. Xuemei Li & Mike Thelwall & Dean Giustini, 2012. "Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 461-471, May.
    7. Pardeep Sud & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Evaluating altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1131-1143, February.
    8. Siluo Yang & Feng Ma & Yanhui Song & Junping Qiu, 2010. "A longitudinal analysis of citation distribution breadth for Chinese scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(3), pages 755-765, December.
    9. Luis Miguel Pérez & Raul Oltra-Badenes & Juan Vicente Oltra Gutiérrez & Hermenegildo Gil-Gómez, 2020. "A Bibliometric Diagnosis and Analysis about Smart Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-43, August.
    10. Fairclough, Ruth & Thelwall, Mike, 2015. "National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 845-859.
    11. Bhaskar Mukherjee & Siniša Subotić & Ajay Kumar Chaubey, 2018. "And now for something completely different: the congruence of the Altmetric Attention Score’s structure between different article groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(1), pages 253-275, January.
    12. Lola García-Santiago & Felix Moya-Anegón, 2009. "Using co-outlinks to mine heterogeneous networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(3), pages 681-702, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Hildrun Kretschmer & Isidro F. Aguillo, 2004. "Visibility of collaboration on the Web," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 61(3), pages 405-426, November.
    15. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    16. Mike Thelwall & Paul Wilson, 2016. "Does research with statistics have more impact? The citation rank advantage of structural equation modeling," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(5), pages 1233-1244, May.
    17. Ortega, José Luis, 2014. "Influence of co-authorship networks in the research impact: Ego network analyses from Microsoft Academic Search," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 728-737.
    18. Pardeep Sud & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Linked title mentions: a new automated link search candidate," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1831-1849, December.
    19. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2017. "ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 1125-1131, August.
    20. Iman Tahamtan & Askar Safipour Afshar & Khadijeh Ahamdzadeh, 2016. "Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1195-1225, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0035869. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.