IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v128y2023i6d10.1007_s11192-023-04720-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do open science badges work? Estimating the effects of open science badges on an article’s social media attention and research impacts

Author

Listed:
  • Qianjin Zong

    (South China Normal University)

  • Zhihong Huang

    (South China Normal University)

  • Jiaru Huang

    (South China Normal University)

Abstract

As a response to the replicability crisis, awarding open science badges was designed as an incentive for researchers to participate in open science practices (e.g., sharing data, sharing materials, and preregistration). Estimating the effectiveness (such as articles’ impacts) of the policy of awarding open science badges could address the concern of authors, journals, and open science stakeholders: do open science badges work? This study aimed to estimate the effects of open science badges on an article’s social media attention (measured by tweets) and research impacts (measured by citation counts). Articles published by Psychological Science during the period from 2014 to 2021 were selected as the sample (n = 1,161). Propensity score matching analysis was employed to examine the data. Data samples of different sizes and four other matching methods were used to check the robustness of the main results. Our results revealed that open science badges had a significant effect on social media attention, while they did not have a significant effect on the research impacts of an article.

Suggested Citation

  • Qianjin Zong & Zhihong Huang & Jiaru Huang, 2023. "Do open science badges work? Estimating the effects of open science badges on an article’s social media attention and research impacts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3627-3648, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04720-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04720-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-023-04720-7
    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/s11192-023-04720-7?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. Petty, Richard E & Cacioppo, John T & Schumann, David, 1983. "Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(2), pages 135-146, September.
    2. Bo Yang & Chao Liu & Xusen Cheng & Xi Ma, 2022. "Understanding Users' Group Behavioral Decisions About Sharing Articles in Social Media: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 819-842, August.
    3. Jane Cho, 2021. "Altmetrics analysis of highly cited academic papers in the field of library and information science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7623-7635, September.
    4. Malika Ihle & Isabel S. Winney & Anna Krystalli & Michael Croucher, 2017. "Striving for transparent and credible research: practical guidelines for behavioral ecologists," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(2), pages 348-354.
    5. Garret Christensen & Allan Dafoe & Edward Miguel & Don A Moore & Andrew K Rose, 2019. "A study of the impact of data sharing on article citations using journal policies as a natural experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Ben Jann, 2017. "kmatch: Kernel matching with automatic bandwidth selection," United Kingdom Stata Users' Group Meetings 2017 11, Stata Users Group.
    7. David Giofrè & Geoff Cumming & Luca Fresc & Ingrid Boedker & Patrizio Tressoldi, 2017. "The influence of journal submission guidelines on authors' reporting of statistics and use of open research practices," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, April.
    8. Qianjin Zong & Yafen Xie & Jiechun Liang, 2020. "Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 607-623, October.
    9. Hannah Hobson, 2019. "Registered reports are an ally to early career researchers," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(10), pages 1010-1010, October.
    10. Harper, Lindsey M. & Kim, Youngseek, 2018. "Attitudinal, normative, and resource factors affecting psychologists’ intentions to adopt an open data badge: An empirical analysis," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 23-32.
    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. Wei Yu & Junpeng Chen & Sanhong Deng, 2024. "Open Science Under Debate: Disentangling the Interest on Twitter and Scholarly Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(3), pages 21582440241, August.

    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. Brian Jackson, 2021. "Open Data Policies among Library and Information Science Journals," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-12, June.
    2. Liwei Zhang & Liang Ma, 2021. "Does open data boost journal impact: evidence from Chinese economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3393-3419, April.
    3. Stallen, Mirre & Smidts, Ale & Rijpkema, Mark & Smit, Gitty & Klucharev, Vasily & Fernández, Guillén, 2010. "Celebrities and shoes on the female brain: The neural correlates of product evaluation in the context of fame," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 802-811, October.
    4. O'Cass, A., 2000. "An assessment of consumers product, purchase decision, advertising and consumption involvement in fashion clothing," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 545-576, October.
    5. Jakina Debnam, 2017. "Selection Effects and Heterogeneous Demand Responses to the Berkeley Soda Tax Vote," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1172-1187.
    6. Li, Hui & Xu, Yunjie & Huang, Lihua, 2021. "When less is more? The contingent effect of product supply limitation in the release of new electronic products," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    7. Dong Hoo Kim & Doori Song, 2019. "Can brand experience shorten consumers’ psychological distance toward the brand? The effect of brand experience on consumers’ construal level," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 26(3), pages 255-267, May.
    8. Hsu, Chia-Lin & Chang, Chi-Ya & Yansritakul, Chutinart, 2017. "Exploring purchase intention of green skincare products using the theory of planned behavior: Testing the moderating effects of country of origin and price sensitivity," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 145-152.
    9. Nathan Klaus & Ainsworth Anthony Bailey, 2008. "Celebrity Endorsements: An Examination of Gender and Consumers’ Attitudes," American Journal of Business, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(2), pages 53-61.
    10. Naixin Zhu, 2023. "Dissertation on Applied Microeconomics of Freemium Pricing Strategies in Mobile App Market," Papers 2305.09479, arXiv.org.
    11. Ramendra Pratap Singh & Neelotpaul Banerjee, 2018. "Exploring the Influence of Celebrity Credibility on Brand Attitude, Advertisement Attitude and Purchase Intention," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 19(6), pages 1622-1639, December.
    12. Raksha Deshbhag, 2018. "Influence of Celebrity Credibility on Consumer Product Evaluation and Attitude Formation � A Conceptual Framework," GATR Journals jmmr198, Global Academy of Training and Research (GATR) Enterprise.
    13. Daniel Hoppe, 2021. "Argument-Based Versus Emotion-Based Videos During the Early Stages of Recruitment: Effects on Perceived Employer Brand Image, Application Intentions, and Positive Word-of-Mouth," Corporate Reputation Review, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 24(1), pages 31-47, February.
    14. Rosbergen, Edward & Wedel, Michel & Pieters, Rik, 1997. "Analyzing visual attention tot repeated print advertising using scanpath theory," Research Report 97B32, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    15. Licsandru, Tana Cristina & Cui, Charles Chi, 2018. "Subjective social inclusion: A conceptual critique for socially inclusive marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 330-339.
    16. Pham Minh & Dang Thao Yen & Ngo Thi Huong Quynh & Hoang Thi Hong Yen & Tran Thi Thanh Nga & Nguyen Van Quoc, 2021. "Assessment of influencer’s effects on customers’ online purchasing behavior in Vietnam," HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE - ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY, vol. 11(2), pages 81-96.
    17. Tibert Verhagen & Daniel Bloemers, 2018. "Exploring the cognitive and affective bases of online purchase intentions: a hierarchical test across product types," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 537-561, September.
    18. Erfgen, Carsten & Zenker, Sebastian & Sattler, Henrik, 2015. "The vampire effect: When do celebrity endorsers harm brand recall?," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 155-163.
    19. Pradeep Kumar Ponnamma Divakaran & Jie Xiong, 2022. "Eliciting brand association networks: A new method using online community data," Post-Print hal-03700393, HAL.
    20. Stephan Verroen & Jan M. Gutteling & Peter W. De Vries, 2013. "Enhancing Self‐Protective Behavior: Efficacy Beliefs and Peer Feedback in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(7), pages 1252-1264, July.

    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:6:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04720-7. 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.