IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0120495.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Characterizing Social Media Metrics of Scholarly Papers: The Effect of Document Properties and Collaboration Patterns

Author

Listed:
  • Stefanie Haustein
  • Rodrigo Costas
  • Vincent Larivière

Abstract

A number of new metrics based on social media platforms—grouped under the term “altmetrics”—have recently been introduced as potential indicators of research impact. Despite their current popularity, there is a lack of information regarding the determinants of these metrics. Using publication and citation data from 1.3 million papers published in 2012 and covered in Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science as well as social media counts from Altmetric.com, this paper analyses the main patterns of five social media metrics as a function of document characteristics (i.e., discipline, document type, title length, number of pages and references) and collaborative practices and compares them to patterns known for citations. Results show that the presence of papers on social media is low, with 21.5% of papers receiving at least one tweet, 4.7% being shared on Facebook, 1.9% mentioned on blogs, 0.8% found on Google+ and 0.7% discussed in mainstream media. By contrast, 66.8% of papers have received at least one citation. Our findings show that both citations and social media metrics increase with the extent of collaboration and the length of the references list. On the other hand, while editorials and news items are seldom cited, it is these types of document that are the most popular on Twitter. Similarly, while longer papers typically attract more citations, an opposite trend is seen on social media platforms. Finally, contrary to what is observed for citations, it is papers in the Social Sciences and humanities that are the most often found on social media platforms. On the whole, these findings suggest that factors driving social media and citations are different. Therefore, social media metrics cannot actually be seen as alternatives to citations; at most, they may function as complements to other type of indicators.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefanie Haustein & Rodrigo Costas & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Characterizing Social Media Metrics of Scholarly Papers: The Effect of Document Properties and Collaboration Patterns," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0120495
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120495
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120495
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120495&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0120495?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. Matthew E Falagas & Angeliki Zarkali & Drosos E Karageorgopoulos & Vangelis Bardakas & Michael N Mavros, 2013. "The Impact of Article Length on the Number of Future Citations: A Bibliometric Analysis of General Medicine Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-8, February.
    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. Letchford, Adrian & Preis, Tobias & Moat, Helen Susannah, 2016. "The advantage of simple paper abstracts," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 1-8.
    2. Syed Hasan & Robert Breunig, 2021. "Article length and citation outcomes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7583-7608, September.
    3. Mingyang Wang & Zhenyu Wang & Guangsheng Chen, 2019. "Which can better predict the future success of articles? Bibliometric indices or alternative metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1575-1595, June.
    4. Naomi Moy & Ho Fai Chan & Benno Torgler, 2018. "How much is too much? The effects of information quantity on crowdfunding performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    5. Bramoullé, Yann & Ductor, Lorenzo, 2018. "Title length," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 311-324.
    6. Sato, Ryoma & Yamada, Makoto & Kashima, Hisashi, 2022. "Poincare: Recommending Publication Venues via Treatment Effect Estimation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    7. Gianna Kexin Jiang & Yajun Jiang, 2023. "More diversity, more complexity, but more flexibility: research article titles in TESOL Quarterly, 1967–2022," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(7), pages 3959-3980, July.
    8. T. Liskiewicz & G. Liskiewicz & J. Paczesny, 2021. "Factors affecting the citations of papers in tribology journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3321-3336, April.
    9. Martorell Cunil, Onofre & Otero González, Luis & Durán Santomil, Pablo & Mulet Forteza, Carlos, 2023. "How to accomplish a highly cited paper in the tourism, leisure and hospitality field," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    10. Bornmann, Lutz, 2019. "Does the normalized citation impact of universities profit from certain properties of their published documents – such as the number of authors and the impact factor of the publishing journals? A mult," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 170-184.
    11. Kaile Gong & Juan Xie & Ying Cheng & Vincent Larivière & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2019. "The citation advantage of foreign language references for Chinese social science papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1439-1460, September.
    12. Tahamtan, Iman & Bornmann, Lutz, 2018. "Core elements in the process of citing publications: Conceptual overview of the literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 203-216.
    13. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin & Mutz, Rüdiger, 2020. "Should citations be field-normalized in evaluative bibliometrics? An empirical analysis based on propensity score matching," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    14. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall, 2024. "Factors associating with or predicting more cited or higher quality journal articles: An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 75(3), pages 215-244, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Shesen Guo & Ganzhou Zhang & Qiuhong Ju & Yu Chen & Qianfeng Chen & Lulu Li, 2015. "The evolution of conceptual diversity in economics titles from 1890 to 2012," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2073-2088, March.
    17. Bornmann, Lutz & Tekles, Alexander, 2021. "Convergent validity of several indicators measuring disruptiveness with milestone assignments to physics papers by experts," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    18. Daniel L Belavy & Patrick J Owen & Patricia M Livingston, 2020. "Do successful PhD outcomes reflect the research environment rather than academic ability?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-14, August.
    19. Yangping Zhou, 2021. "Self-citation and citation of top journal publishers and their interpretation in the journal-discipline context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6013-6040, July.
    20. Lutz Bornmann & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2025. "Pattern, Perception, and Performance: Tripartite Phrases in Academic Paper Titles," CESifo Working Paper Series 11671, CESifo.

    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:pone00:0120495. 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.