科学论文首条推特的积累速度与用户类型分析
|
摘要
[目的/意义]科学论文的首条推特是论文在推特平台传播的起点,对论文首条推特进行分析有利于展现推特数据的积累模式与用户行为特征。[研究设计/方法]以200余万篇Web of Science论文为样本,对不同学科领域科学论文首条推特的积累速度和用户类型进行了大规模比较研究。[结论/发现]生物医学与健康科学、人文与社会科学领域的论文具有最高的推特数据覆盖率。物理学与工程学领域的论文则表现出最快的首条推特积累速度。大部分情况下,科学传播者和科研人员是最快发布首条推特的用户类型。此外,对于大部分发表了较多推特数据的论文的国家/地区而言,来自当地的推特用户很大程度上贡献了本国/地区作者发表论文的首条推特。[创新/价值]对首条推特的分析有助于从数据积累的源头理解科学论文在推特平台的传播过程。
[Purpose/Significance]The first tweets of scientific publications are the beginning of papers' dissemination on Twitter. Analysis on the first tweets is indicative of the accumulation pattern and users' behavior characteristics of Twitter data. [Design/Methodology]2,038,646 papers from the Web of Science have been collected as research objects, which were used to make a large-scale comparison of accumulation speed and user type of papers' first tweets in different fields.[Findings/Conclusion]Papers in the fields of Biomedical & Health Sciences and Social Sciences & Humanities have the highest coverage percentages of Twitter data. Papers' first tweets of Physical Sciences and Engineering have the fastest accumulation. In most cases, science communicators and researchers are mostly the fastest posters of the first tweets. For the majority of countries and regions with large number of papers' Twitter data, Twitter users from the authors' affiliated countries or regions have made significant contribution of posting the first tweets.[Originality/Value]The analysis on first tweets is expected to shed light on the dissemination process of scientific papers on Twitter from the perspective of data accumulation.
[Purpose/Significance]The first tweets of scientific publications are the beginning of papers' dissemination on Twitter. Analysis on the first tweets is indicative of the accumulation pattern and users' behavior characteristics of Twitter data. [Design/Methodology]2,038,646 papers from the Web of Science have been collected as research objects, which were used to make a large-scale comparison of accumulation speed and user type of papers' first tweets in different fields.[Findings/Conclusion]Papers in the fields of Biomedical & Health Sciences and Social Sciences & Humanities have the highest coverage percentages of Twitter data. Papers' first tweets of Physical Sciences and Engineering have the fastest accumulation. In most cases, science communicators and researchers are mostly the fastest posters of the first tweets. For the majority of countries and regions with large number of papers' Twitter data, Twitter users from the authors' affiliated countries or regions have made significant contribution of posting the first tweets.[Originality/Value]The analysis on first tweets is expected to shed light on the dissemination process of scientific papers on Twitter from the perspective of data accumulation.
引文
1 Wouters P, Costas R. Users, Narcissism and Control: Tracking the Impact of Scholarly Publications in the 21st Century[C]// Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Montreal, Canada, 2012.
2 Bornmann L. Do Altmetrics Point to the Broader Impact of Research? An Overview of Benefits and Disadvantages of Altmetrics[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2014, 8(4):895-903.
3 Wang J. Citation Time Window Choice for Research Impact Evaluation[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 94(3):851-872.
4 Amat C. Editorial and Publication Delay of Papers Submitted to 14 Selected Food Research Journals. Influence of Online Posting[J]. Scientometrics, 2007, 74(3):379-389.
5 Bj?rk B C, Solomon D. The Publishing Delay in Scholarly Peer-Reviewed Journals[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2013, 7(4):914-923.
6 Wouters P, Zahedi Z, Costas R. Social Media Metrics for New Research Evaluation[J/OL]. Arxiv Preprint, arXiv:1806.10541[2018-06-27].https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.10541.
7 Maflahi N, Thelwall M. How Quickly Do Publications Get Read? The Evolution of Mendeley Reader Counts for New Articles[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2018, 69(1):158-167.
8 Haustein S, Peters I, Bar-Ilan J, et al. Coverage and Adoption of Altmetrics Sources in the Bibliometric Community[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(2):1145-1163.
9 Mohammadi E, ThelwallM. Mendeley Readership Altmetricsfor the Social Sciences and Humanities: Research Evaluation and Knowledge Flows[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 65(8):1627-1638.
10 Maflahi N, Thelwall M. When Are Readership Counts as Useful as Citation Counts? Scopus VersusMendeleyfor LIS Journals[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(1):191-199.
11 Wang X, Fang Z, Guo X. Tracking the Digital Footprints to Scholarly Articles from Social Media[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 109(2):1365-1376.
12 Costas R, Zahedi Z, Wouters P. Do “Altmetrics” Correlate with Citations? Extensive Comparison of Altmetric Indicators with Citations from a Multidisciplinary Perspective[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(10):2003-2019.
13 Fang Z, Costas R. Studying the Posts Accumulation Patterns of Altmetric.com Data Sources[C]// Altmetrics 18 Workshop, London, UK, 2018.
14 Fang Z, Costas R. Studying the Velocity Index for Various Altmetric.com Data Sources[C]// Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2018), Leiden, the Netherlands,2018.
15 Ortega JL. The Life Cycle of Altmetric Impact: A Longitudinal Study of Six Metrics from PlumX[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2018, 12(3):579-589.
16 Shuai X, Pepe A, Bollen J. How the Scientific Community Reacts to Newly Submitted Preprints: Article Downloads, Twitter Mentions, and Citations[J]. PLoSOne, 2012, 7(11):e47523.
17 Haustein S, Bowman TD, Costas R. When Is An Article Actually Published? An Analysis of Online Availability, Publication, and Indexation Dates[C]// Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI), Istanbul, Turkey, 2015.
18 Darling E S, Shiffman D, C?té I M, et al. The Role of Twitter in the Life Cycle of a Scientific Publication[J]. PeerJPrePrints, 2013, 1:e16v1.
19 Thelwall M, Haustein S, Larivière V, et al. Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services[J]. PLoSOne, 2013, 8(5):e64841.
20 de Winter J. The Relationship between Tweets, Citations, and Article Views for PLOS ONE Articles[J]. Scientometrics, 2015, 102(2):1773-1779.
21 Zahedi Z, Costas R, Wouters P. How Well Developed Are Altmetrics? A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of the Presence of ‘Alternative Metrics’ in Scientific Publications[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(2):1491-1513.
22 Yu H, Xu S, Xiao T, et al. Global Science Discussed in Local Altmetrics: Weibo and Its Comparison with Twitter[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2017, 11(2):466-482.
23 Nane T.Time to First Citation Estimation in the Presence of Additional Information[C]//Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI), Istanbul, Turkey, 2015.
24 Huang Y, Bu Y, Ding Y, et al. From Zero to One: A Perspective on Citing[J/OL]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2019[2019-03-22]. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.24177.
25 Pentz E. 100,000,000 Records – Thank You![EB/OL].[2018-09-26]. https://www.crossref.org/blog/100000000-records-thank-you/.
26 Waltman L, Van Eck NJ. A New Methodology for Constructing a Publication-Level Classification System of Science[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012, 63(12):2378-2392.
27 Shu F, Julien C A, Zhang L, et al. Comparing Journal and Paper Level Classifications of Science[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2019, 13(1):202-225.
28 Altmetric LLP. How Are Twitter Demographics Determined?[EB/OL]. [2019-01-09]. https://help.altmetric.com/support/solutions/articles/6000060978-how-are-twitter-demographics
29 Wang X, Fang Z, Li Q, et al. The Poor Altmetric Performance of Publications Authored by Researchers in Mainland China[J]. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 2016, 1:8.
30 Fang Z, Guo X, Yang Y, et al. Measuring Global Research Activities Using Geographic Data of Scholarly Article Visits[J]. The Electronic Library, 2017, 35(4):822-838.
31 Shu F, Lou W, Haustein S. Can Twitter Increase the Visibility of Chinese Publications?[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 116(1):505-519.
2 Bornmann L. Do Altmetrics Point to the Broader Impact of Research? An Overview of Benefits and Disadvantages of Altmetrics[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2014, 8(4):895-903.
3 Wang J. Citation Time Window Choice for Research Impact Evaluation[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 94(3):851-872.
4 Amat C. Editorial and Publication Delay of Papers Submitted to 14 Selected Food Research Journals. Influence of Online Posting[J]. Scientometrics, 2007, 74(3):379-389.
5 Bj?rk B C, Solomon D. The Publishing Delay in Scholarly Peer-Reviewed Journals[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2013, 7(4):914-923.
6 Wouters P, Zahedi Z, Costas R. Social Media Metrics for New Research Evaluation[J/OL]. Arxiv Preprint, arXiv:1806.10541[2018-06-27].https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.10541.
7 Maflahi N, Thelwall M. How Quickly Do Publications Get Read? The Evolution of Mendeley Reader Counts for New Articles[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2018, 69(1):158-167.
8 Haustein S, Peters I, Bar-Ilan J, et al. Coverage and Adoption of Altmetrics Sources in the Bibliometric Community[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(2):1145-1163.
9 Mohammadi E, ThelwallM. Mendeley Readership Altmetricsfor the Social Sciences and Humanities: Research Evaluation and Knowledge Flows[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 65(8):1627-1638.
10 Maflahi N, Thelwall M. When Are Readership Counts as Useful as Citation Counts? Scopus VersusMendeleyfor LIS Journals[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(1):191-199.
11 Wang X, Fang Z, Guo X. Tracking the Digital Footprints to Scholarly Articles from Social Media[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 109(2):1365-1376.
12 Costas R, Zahedi Z, Wouters P. Do “Altmetrics” Correlate with Citations? Extensive Comparison of Altmetric Indicators with Citations from a Multidisciplinary Perspective[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(10):2003-2019.
13 Fang Z, Costas R. Studying the Posts Accumulation Patterns of Altmetric.com Data Sources[C]// Altmetrics 18 Workshop, London, UK, 2018.
14 Fang Z, Costas R. Studying the Velocity Index for Various Altmetric.com Data Sources[C]// Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2018), Leiden, the Netherlands,2018.
15 Ortega JL. The Life Cycle of Altmetric Impact: A Longitudinal Study of Six Metrics from PlumX[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2018, 12(3):579-589.
16 Shuai X, Pepe A, Bollen J. How the Scientific Community Reacts to Newly Submitted Preprints: Article Downloads, Twitter Mentions, and Citations[J]. PLoSOne, 2012, 7(11):e47523.
17 Haustein S, Bowman TD, Costas R. When Is An Article Actually Published? An Analysis of Online Availability, Publication, and Indexation Dates[C]// Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI), Istanbul, Turkey, 2015.
18 Darling E S, Shiffman D, C?té I M, et al. The Role of Twitter in the Life Cycle of a Scientific Publication[J]. PeerJPrePrints, 2013, 1:e16v1.
19 Thelwall M, Haustein S, Larivière V, et al. Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services[J]. PLoSOne, 2013, 8(5):e64841.
20 de Winter J. The Relationship between Tweets, Citations, and Article Views for PLOS ONE Articles[J]. Scientometrics, 2015, 102(2):1773-1779.
21 Zahedi Z, Costas R, Wouters P. How Well Developed Are Altmetrics? A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of the Presence of ‘Alternative Metrics’ in Scientific Publications[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(2):1491-1513.
22 Yu H, Xu S, Xiao T, et al. Global Science Discussed in Local Altmetrics: Weibo and Its Comparison with Twitter[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2017, 11(2):466-482.
23 Nane T.Time to First Citation Estimation in the Presence of Additional Information[C]//Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI), Istanbul, Turkey, 2015.
24 Huang Y, Bu Y, Ding Y, et al. From Zero to One: A Perspective on Citing[J/OL]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2019[2019-03-22]. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.24177.
25 Pentz E. 100,000,000 Records – Thank You![EB/OL].[2018-09-26]. https://www.crossref.org/blog/100000000-records-thank-you/.
26 Waltman L, Van Eck NJ. A New Methodology for Constructing a Publication-Level Classification System of Science[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012, 63(12):2378-2392.
27 Shu F, Julien C A, Zhang L, et al. Comparing Journal and Paper Level Classifications of Science[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2019, 13(1):202-225.
28 Altmetric LLP. How Are Twitter Demographics Determined?[EB/OL]. [2019-01-09]. https://help.altmetric.com/support/solutions/articles/6000060978-how-are-twitter-demographics
29 Wang X, Fang Z, Li Q, et al. The Poor Altmetric Performance of Publications Authored by Researchers in Mainland China[J]. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 2016, 1:8.
30 Fang Z, Guo X, Yang Y, et al. Measuring Global Research Activities Using Geographic Data of Scholarly Article Visits[J]. The Electronic Library, 2017, 35(4):822-838.
31 Shu F, Lou W, Haustein S. Can Twitter Increase the Visibility of Chinese Publications?[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 116(1):505-519.