IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i10d10.1007_s11192-024-05011-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stranger things: the vanishing of the Altmetric Attention Score values in information and library science

Author

Listed:
  • Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado

    (University of Granada)

  • Daniel Torres-Salinas

    (University of Granada)

Abstract

This study investigates the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) fluctuations and altmetrics source stability in Information Science & Library Sciences publications, analyzing 26,474 documents from 2012 to 2021. It finds that 23.7% of these publications experienced AAS fluctuations over a year. Significant influences on AAS variability include Twitter mentions and policy documents, with Twitter mentions showing high volatility, affecting nearly 30% of papers. The removal of the Analysis & Policy Observatory as a policy source led to a notable drop in policy document mentions. Various types of mention vanishing are identified, such as administrative decisions by altmetrics aggregators, technological issues, user actions on digital platforms, and natural changes on platforms like Wikipedia. In response, the study proposes modifications in the tracking and monitoring system of mentions to not overlook these vanishings. This aims to enhance the reliability and stability of altmetrics at a time when there is a call for their use in the research evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado & Daniel Torres-Salinas, 2024. "Stranger things: the vanishing of the Altmetric Attention Score values in information and library science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(10), pages 6287-6300, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:10:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05011-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05011-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05011-5
    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/s11192-024-05011-5?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. Mousumi Karmakar & Sumit Kumar Banshal & Vivek Kumar Singh, 2021. "A large-scale comparison of coverage and mentions captured by the two altmetric aggregators: Altmetric.com and PlumX," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4465-4489, May.
    2. Houqiang Yu & Biegzat Murat & Longfei Li & Tingting Xiao, 2021. "How accurate are Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data? A comparative content analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4437-4463, May.
    3. José Luis Ortega, 2018. "Reliability and accuracy of altmetric providers: a comparison among Altmetric.com, PlumX and Crossref Event Data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2123-2138, September.
    4. Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado & Daniel Torres-Salinas & Enrique Herrera-Viedma & Esteban Romero-Frías, 2020. "Science through Wikipedia: A novel representation of open knowledge through co-citation networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-20, February.
    5. Zhichao Fang & Rodrigo Costas, 2020. "Studying the accumulation velocity of altmetric data tracked by Altmetric.com," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1077-1101, May.
    6. Christian Gumpenberger & Wolfgang Glänzel & Juan Gorraiz, 2016. "The ecstasy and the agony of the altmetric score," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 977-982, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Per O. Seglen, 1992. "The skewness of science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(9), pages 628-638, October.
    9. Zhichao Fang & Jonathan Dudek & Rodrigo Costas, 2020. "The stability of Twitter metrics: A study on unavailable Twitter mentions of scientific publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(12), pages 1455-1469, December.
    10. 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.
    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. González-Betancor, Sara M. & Dorta-González, Pablo, 2023. "Does society show differential attention to researchers based on gender and field?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    2. Ortega, José Luis, 2020. "Proposal of composed altmetric indicators based on prevalence and impact dimensions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    3. 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.
    4. Zhichao Fang & Rodrigo Costas & Wencan Tian & Xianwen Wang & Paul Wouters, 2020. "An extensive analysis of the presence of altmetric data for Web of Science publications across subject fields and research topics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2519-2549, September.
    5. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2449-2469, December.
    6. 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).
    7. Houqiang Yu & Xinyun Yu & Xueting Cao, 2022. "How accurate are news mentions of scholarly output? A content analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 4075-4096, July.
    8. Houqiang Yu & Biegzat Murat & Longfei Li & Tingting Xiao, 2021. "How accurate are Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data? A comparative content analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4437-4463, May.
    9. Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Measuring Societal Impacts Of Research With Altmetrics? Common Problems And Mistakes," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1302-1314, December.
    10. Kaltrina Nuredini, 2021. "Investigating Altmetric Information For The Top 1000 Journals From Handelsblatt Ranking In Economic And Business Studies," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1315-1343, December.
    11. Houqiang Yu & Xueting Cao & Tingting Xiao & Zhenyi Yang, 2020. "How accurate are policy document mentions? A first look at the role of altmetrics database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1517-1540, November.
    12. Maryam Moshtagh & Tahereh Jowkar & Maryam Yaghtin & Hajar Sotudeh, 2023. "The moderating effect of altmetrics on the correlations between single and multi-faceted university ranking systems: the case of THE and QS vs. Nature Index and Leiden," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 761-781, January.
    13. Alexander Serenko & Mauricio Marrone & John Dumay, 2022. "Scientometric portraits of recognized scientists: a structured literature review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4827-4846, August.
    14. 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.
    15. Enrique Orduña-Malea & Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo & José-Antonio Ontalba-Ruipérez & Ferrán Catalá-López, 2023. "Evaluating the online impact of reporting guidelines for randomised trial reports and protocols: a cross-sectional web-based data analysis of CONSORT and SPIRIT initiatives," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 407-440, January.
    16. 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.
    17. Zhichao Fang & Rodrigo Costas & Wencan Tian & Xianwen Wang & Paul Wouters, 2021. "How is science clicked on Twitter? Click metrics for Bitly short links to scientific publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(7), pages 918-932, July.
    18. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Domingo Docampo & Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado & Nicolas Robinson-Garcia, 2024. "The many publics of science: using altmetrics to identify common communication channels by scientific field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 3705-3723, July.
    19. Lin Zhang & Zhenyu Gou & Zhichao Fang & Gunnar Sivertsen & Ying Huang, 2023. "Who tweets scientific publications? A large‐scale study of tweeting audiences in all areas of research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(13), pages 1485-1497, December.
    20. Yashan Li & Jinge Mao & Lin Zhang & Dongbo Wang & Si Shen & Ying Huang, 2022. "How scientific research incorporates policy: an examination using the case of China’s science and technology evaluation system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5283-5306, September.

    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:129:y:2024:i:10:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05011-5. 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.