IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v128y2023i5d10.1007_s11192-023-04678-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a better understanding of Facebook Altmetrics in LIS field: assessing the characteristics of involved paper, user and post

Author

Listed:
  • Houqiang Yu

    (Sun Yat-Sen University
    Nanjing University of Science and Technology)

  • Yue Wang

    (Nanjing University of Science and Technology)

  • Shah Hussain

    (Sun Yat-Sen University)

  • Haoyang Song

    (Sun Yat-Sen University)

Abstract

Facebook mentions to scholarly papers have provided a novel way for reflecting and measuring the process of informal scientific communication. To uncover the underlying mechanism of Facebook Altmetrics, it is essential to investigate characteristics of its contextual data. Take library and information science papers for empirical study, three categories of contextual data were gathered, namely data of mentioned LIS papers, data of Facebook users and data of Facebook post. Hybrid methods including statistical analysis, content analysis and visualization analysis were adopted to analyze the data. Results show that: (1) Positive open access status and active Facebook account would help get scholarly paper mentioned but would not boost the number of Facebook mentions. Number of citations, number of collaborative institutions, and number of collaborative countries showed a significantly positive correlation with the number of Facebook mentions. Health information management was identified to be the most mentioned research topic while bibliometrics and scientific evaluation has received on average the highest number of Facebook mentions. (2) Scientific Facebook users that mention LIS papers were widely scattered geographically but dominated by USA, Spain, Germany, Brazil and Australia. Institutional users (89%) and academic users (84%) are prevailing, especially universities (14%), research institutes (12%), libraries (11%), academic associations (9%) and commercial organizations (8%). (3) Most scientific Facebook posts were relatively short, while the language distribution was less skewed than that of scientific tweets. The post content is mostly a combination of text, links, and pictures and with neutral sentiment. Different types of users have demonstrated significantly different style of content and concerned topics. These findings indicate that Facebook mentions to LIS papers mainly reflect the institutional level advocacy and attention, with low level of engagement, and could be influenced by several features including collaborative patterns and research topics.

Suggested Citation

  • Houqiang Yu & Yue Wang & Shah Hussain & Haoyang Song, 2023. "Towards a better understanding of Facebook Altmetrics in LIS field: assessing the characteristics of involved paper, user and post," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 3147-3170, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04678-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04678-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-023-04678-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-023-04678-6?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. Yang, Siluo & Zheng, Mengxue & Yu, Yonghao & Wolfram, Dietmar, 2021. "Are Altmetric.com scores effective for research impact evaluation in the social sciences and humanities?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "Does quality and content matter for citedness? A comparison with para-textual factors and over time," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 419-429.
    3. Stefanie Ringelhan & Jutta Wollersheim & Isabell M Welpe, 2015. "I Like, I Cite? Do Facebook Likes Predict the Impact of Scientific Work?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    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. Didegah, Fereshteh & Mejlgaard, Niels & Sørensen, Mads P., 2018. "Investigating the quality of interactions and public engagement around scientific papers on Twitter," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 960-971.
    6. Fereshteh Didegah & Timothy D. Bowman & Kim Holmberg, 2018. "On the differences between citations and altmetrics: An investigation of factors driving altmetrics versus citations for finnish articles," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(6), pages 832-843, June.
    7. Lakshmi Balachandran Nair & Michael Gibbert, 2016. "What makes a ‘good’ title and (how) does it matter for citations? A review and general model of article title attributes in management science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1331-1359, June.
    8. Zhichao Fang & Jonathan Dudek & Rodrigo Costas, 2022. "Facing the volatility of tweets in altmetric research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(8), pages 1192-1195, August.
    9. Zhichao Fang & Rodrigo Costas & Paul Wouters, 2022. "User engagement with scholarly tweets of scientific papers: a large-scale and cross-disciplinary analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4523-4546, August.
    10. Mike Thelwall & Nabeil Maflahi, 2015. "Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? An analysis of mendeley readers," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(6), pages 1124-1135, June.
    11. Ali Gazni & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Fereshteh Didegah, 2012. "Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(2), pages 323-335, February.
    12. Ali Gazni & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Fereshteh Didegah, 2012. "Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(2), pages 323-335, February.
    13. Didegah, Fereshteh & Thelwall, Mike, 2013. "Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 861-873.
    14. Zahedi, Zohreh & Haustein, Stefanie, 2018. "On the relationships between bibliographic characteristics of scientific documents and citation and Mendeley readership counts: A large-scale analysis of Web of Science publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 191-202.
    15. 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.
    16. Julia Vainio & Kim Holmberg, 2017. "Highly tweeted science articles: who tweets them? An analysis of Twitter user profile descriptions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 345-366, July.
    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. Zahedi, Zohreh & Haustein, Stefanie, 2018. "On the relationships between bibliographic characteristics of scientific documents and citation and Mendeley readership counts: A large-scale analysis of Web of Science publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 191-202.
    2. Zhichao Fang & Rodrigo Costas & Paul Wouters, 2022. "User engagement with scholarly tweets of scientific papers: a large-scale and cross-disciplinary analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4523-4546, August.
    3. Radhamany Sooryamoorthy, 2019. "Scientific knowledge in South Africa: information trends, patterns and collaboration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1365-1386, June.
    4. Önder, Ali Sina & Schweitzer, Sascha & Yilmazkuday, Hakan, 2021. "Specialization, field distance, and quality in economists’ collaborations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    5. Kong, Ling & Wang, Dongbo, 2020. "Comparison of citations and attention of cover and non-cover papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    6. María Bordons & Borja González-Albo & Javier Aparicio & Luz Moreno, 2015. "The influence of R&D intensity of countries on the impact of international collaborative research: evidence from Spain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1385-1400, February.
    7. Ali Sina Önder & Sascha Schweitzer & Hakan Yilmazkuday, 2021. "Field Distance and Quality in Economists’ Collaborations," Working Papers in Economics & Finance 2021-04, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Economics and Finance Subject Group.
    8. Manganote, Edmilson J.T. & Araujo, Mariana S. & Schulz, Peter A., 2014. "Visualization of ranking data: Geographical signatures in international collaboration, leadership and research impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 642-649.
    9. Ali Gazni & Vincent Larivière & Fereshteh Didegah, 2016. "The effect of collaborators on institutions’ scientific impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1209-1230, November.
    10. Lipeng Fan & Yuefen Wang & Shengchun Ding & Binbin Qi, 2020. "Productivity trends and citation impact of different institutional collaboration patterns at the research units’ level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1179-1196, November.
    11. Enrique Orduña-Malea & Cristina I. Font-Julián, 2022. "Are patents linked on Twitter? A case study of Google patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6339-6362, November.
    12. 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.
    13. Wagner, Caroline S. & Whetsell, Travis A. & Mukherjee, Satyam, 2019. "International research collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1260-1270.
    14. Sultan Orazbayev, 2017. "Diversity and collaboration in Economics," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 2017-4, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    15. Thelwall, Mike & Sud, Pardeep, 2014. "No citation advantage for monograph-based collaborations?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 276-283.
    16. Ruimin Pei & Langqiu Li & Yiying Yang & Quan Zhou, 2024. "Co-evolution of international scientific mobility and international collaboration: a Scopus-based analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4353-4378, July.
    17. Hou, Jianhua & Wang, Yuanyuan & Zhang, Yang & Wang, Dongyi, 2022. "How do scholars and non-scholars participate in dataset dissemination on Twitter," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    18. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2019. "Diversification versus specialization in scientific research: Which strategy pays off?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 51-57.
    19. Cathelijn J F Waaijer & Benoît Macaluso & Cassidy R Sugimoto & Vincent Larivière, 2016. "Stability and Longevity in the Publication Careers of U.S. Doctorate Recipients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-15, April.
    20. Constance Poitras & Vincent Larivière, 2023. "Research mobility to the United States: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2601-2614, 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:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04678-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.