Disciplinary differences in altmetrics for social sciences

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of altmetrics in different disciplines of Social Science, first, by investigating the current richness and future potential of altmetrics in the selected social science disciplines and then, by evaluating the validity of altme...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Htoo, Tint Hla Hla, Na, Jin-Cheon
Other Authors: Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: 2017
Subjects:
Online Access:https://hdl.handle.net/10356/81432
http://hdl.handle.net/10220/42249
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Nanyang Technological University
Language: English
id sg-ntu-dr.10356-81432
record_format dspace
spelling sg-ntu-dr.10356-814322020-09-21T20:10:43Z Disciplinary differences in altmetrics for social sciences Htoo, Tint Hla Hla Na, Jin-Cheon Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information Library Altmetrics Bibliometrics Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of altmetrics in different disciplines of Social Science, first, by investigating the current richness and future potential of altmetrics in the selected social science disciplines and then, by evaluating the validity of altmetrics as indicators of research impact in each discipline through correlation analysis. Design/methodology/approach – This study uses 3 methods to understand the current richness and future potential of 10 altmetric measures in 9 selected disciplines: (1) investigate the distribution and trend of altmetric data, (2) verify the relationship between citation rate and altmetric presence of the discipline using Pearson correlation, and (3) perform word frequency analysis on tweets to understand different altmetric presence in different disciplines. In addition, this study uses Spearman and Sign Test to find the correlation between altmetrics and citation counts for the articles that receive altmetric mention(s) to test the validity of altmetrics as indicators of research impact. Findings – (1) There is a steady increase in the number of articles that receive altmetric mentions in all disciplines studied. (2) In general, disciplines with higher citation rates have higher altmetric presence. At the same time, altmetrics are also an effective complement to citation in disciplines with low citation rates. (3) There are a moderate correlation with Mendeley and significant but weak correlations with Tweets and CiteULike in 7 disciplines. (4) Altmetrics are most effective as a predictor of citation counts in Psychiatry, Clinical Psychology and Political Science; appear useful in Nursing and Information Science & Library Science; fairly applicable in Health Policy and Services and Management. However, there is low altmetric presence and lack of correlation with citation counts in Business-Finance and Law disciplines. Originality/value – This paper furthers our understanding of altmetrics in social science disciplines. It reveals the disciplines where altmetrics are most effective, potentially useful and fairly applicable. In addition, it presents evidence that altmetrics are an effective complement to citation in disciplines with low citation rates. Accepted version 2017-04-11T08:10:54Z 2019-12-06T14:30:50Z 2017-04-11T08:10:54Z 2019-12-06T14:30:50Z 2017 Journal Article Htoo, T. H. H., & Na, J. C. (2017). Disciplinary differences in altmetrics for social sciences. Online Information Review, 41(2), 235-251. 1468-4527 https://hdl.handle.net/10356/81432 http://hdl.handle.net/10220/42249 10.1108/OIR-12-2015-0386 en Online Information Review © 2017 Emerald Publishing Limited. This is the author created version of a work that has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication by Online Information Review, Emerald Publishing Limited. It incorporates referee’s comments but changes resulting from the publishing process, such as copyediting, structural formatting, may not be reflected in this document. The published version is available at: [http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OIR-12-2015-0386]. application/pdf
institution Nanyang Technological University
building NTU Library
country Singapore
collection DR-NTU
language English
topic Altmetrics
Bibliometrics
spellingShingle Altmetrics
Bibliometrics
Htoo, Tint Hla Hla
Na, Jin-Cheon
Disciplinary differences in altmetrics for social sciences
description Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of altmetrics in different disciplines of Social Science, first, by investigating the current richness and future potential of altmetrics in the selected social science disciplines and then, by evaluating the validity of altmetrics as indicators of research impact in each discipline through correlation analysis. Design/methodology/approach – This study uses 3 methods to understand the current richness and future potential of 10 altmetric measures in 9 selected disciplines: (1) investigate the distribution and trend of altmetric data, (2) verify the relationship between citation rate and altmetric presence of the discipline using Pearson correlation, and (3) perform word frequency analysis on tweets to understand different altmetric presence in different disciplines. In addition, this study uses Spearman and Sign Test to find the correlation between altmetrics and citation counts for the articles that receive altmetric mention(s) to test the validity of altmetrics as indicators of research impact. Findings – (1) There is a steady increase in the number of articles that receive altmetric mentions in all disciplines studied. (2) In general, disciplines with higher citation rates have higher altmetric presence. At the same time, altmetrics are also an effective complement to citation in disciplines with low citation rates. (3) There are a moderate correlation with Mendeley and significant but weak correlations with Tweets and CiteULike in 7 disciplines. (4) Altmetrics are most effective as a predictor of citation counts in Psychiatry, Clinical Psychology and Political Science; appear useful in Nursing and Information Science & Library Science; fairly applicable in Health Policy and Services and Management. However, there is low altmetric presence and lack of correlation with citation counts in Business-Finance and Law disciplines. Originality/value – This paper furthers our understanding of altmetrics in social science disciplines. It reveals the disciplines where altmetrics are most effective, potentially useful and fairly applicable. In addition, it presents evidence that altmetrics are an effective complement to citation in disciplines with low citation rates.
author2 Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information
author_facet Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information
Htoo, Tint Hla Hla
Na, Jin-Cheon
format Article
author Htoo, Tint Hla Hla
Na, Jin-Cheon
author_sort Htoo, Tint Hla Hla
title Disciplinary differences in altmetrics for social sciences
title_short Disciplinary differences in altmetrics for social sciences
title_full Disciplinary differences in altmetrics for social sciences
title_fullStr Disciplinary differences in altmetrics for social sciences
title_full_unstemmed Disciplinary differences in altmetrics for social sciences
title_sort disciplinary differences in altmetrics for social sciences
publishDate 2017
url https://hdl.handle.net/10356/81432
http://hdl.handle.net/10220/42249
_version_ 1681057735456587776