Research on differential and interactive impact of China-led and US-led open-access articles

Abstract

With the development of Web 2.0, social media dialogue has been increasingly important within the world of open access (OA), striving for more user-generated content and ease of use. In this article, we analysed the impact of OA articles published by both Chinese and the American researchers using PLOS ONE. Papers published in the same year, using citation and social media metrics, were all used to analyse the correlation between the level of social media metrics and citation. Overall, the impact of OA articles published within the United States is higher than OA articles published in China. The results showed that citations and number of Mendeley readers have a significant correlation, which reflect the similar impact in evaluation of OA articles. However, most social media metrics did not have an obvious correlation with impact evaluation, which indicates the social media metrics are useful when paired with citations, but not irreplaceable to citations. Social media metrics appear to be a useful alternative metrics to accurately reflecting the impact of OA articles within the scientific community.

Keywords

Altmetrics impact evaluation open-access article social media metrics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Price

Beaver

. Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist 1966; 21(11): 1011–1018.

Press

. The scientific community. Physics Bulletin 1973; 24(9): 551.

Edge

. Quantitative measures of communication in science: a critical review. History of Science 1979; 17(36 Pt.2): 102–134.

Katz

Martin

. What is research collaboration? Research Policy 1997; 26(1): 1–18.

Bozeman

Corley

. Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy 2004; 33(4): 599–616.

Tijssen

RJW

. Measuring and evaluating science – technology connections and interactions. In: Glänzel

Schmoch

Moed

(eds) Handbook of quantitative science & technology research, 2004, pp. 695–715New York: Springer.

Wang

Fang

Guo

. Tracking the digital footprints to scholarly articles from social media. Scientometrics 2016; 109(2): 1365–1376.

Barker

. The nature of leadership. Human Relations 2001; 54(4): 469–494.

Brand

Allen

Altman

et al. Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learned Publishing 2015; 28(2): 151–155.

10.

Lukes

. Social media. AAOHN J 2010; 58(10): 415–417.

11.

Lawrence

. Online or invisible. Nature 2001; 411(6837): 521.

12.

Eysenbach

. Correction: can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. J Med Internet Res 2011; 13(4): e123.

13.

Kim

Park

. Structural effects of R&D collaboration network on knowledge diffusion performance. Expert Syst Appl 2009; 36(5): 8986–8992.

14.

Min

. Scale-free network provides an optimal pattern for knowledge transfer. Physica A-Stat Mech Appl 2010; 389(3): 473–480.

15.

Wasserman

Faust

. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Contemp Sociol 1994; 91(435): 219–220.

16.

Reis

PCA

. Social network analysis in telecommunications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

17.

Andrea

Ferri

Grifoni

. An overview of methods for virtual social networks analysis. London: Springer, 2010.

18.

Carlsson

. Network governance of the commons. Int J Common 2008; 2(1): 36–39.

19.

Bodin Crona

ÖBI

. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference? Global Environ Change 2009; 19(3): 366–374.

20.

Newig

Günther

Pahl-Wostl

. Neurons in the network learning in governance networks in the context of environmental management. Ecol Soc 2010; 19(1): 50–55.

21.

Ogbonna

Harris

. Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: empirical evidence from UK companies. Int J Human Resource Manag 2000; 11(4): 766–788.

22.

Barjak

Robinson

. International collaboration, mobility and team diversity in the life sciences: Impact on research performance. Social Geography 2008; 3(1): 23–36.

23.

Huang

Lin

. International collaboration and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity. Proc Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 2010; 47(1): 1–4.

24.

Sarwar

Hassan

. A bibliometric assessment of scientific productivity and international collaboration of the Islamic World in science and technology (S&T) areas. Scientometrics 2015; 105(2): 1059–1077.

25.

Maurice

Vergeer

. Introduction to webometrics: quantitative web research for the social sciences. J Inform Technol Politic 2013; 10(2): 241–243.

26.

Moro

Rita

Vala

et al. Predicting social media performance metrics and evaluation of the impact on brand building: a data mining approach. J Business Res 2016; 69(9): 3341–3351.

27.

Rawhouser

Cummings

Newbert

. Social impact measurement: Current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research. Social Sci Electron Publish 2019; 43(1): 82–115.

28.

Kousha

Thelwall

. Google book search: citation analysis for social science and the humanities. J Am Soc Inform Sci Tech 2009; 60: 1537–1549.

29.

Thelwall

Kousha

. Online presentations as a source of scientific impact? An analysis of PowerPoint files citing academic journals. J Am Soc Inform Sci Tech 2008; 59(5): 805–815.

30.

Mccain

. The web of knowledge: a festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield. Libr Inform Sci Res 2001; 71(3): 427–429.

31.

Brody

. Earlier web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact. J Am Soc Inform Sci Tech 2006; 8(57): 1060-1072.

32.

Wang

Liu

Mao

et al. The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics 2015; 103(2): 555–564.

33.

Sullo

. Open access papers have a greater citation advantage in the author-pays model compared to toll access papers in Springer and Elsevier open access journals. Evidence Based Libr Inform Pract 2016; 11(1): 60.

34.

Koler-Povh

Južnič

Turk

. Impact of open access on citation of scholarly publications in the field of civil engineering. Scientometrics 2014; 98(2): 1033–1045.

35.

Rodrigues

Nimrichter

Cordero

RJB

. The benefits of scientific mobility and international collaboration. Fems Microbiology Letters 2017: w247.

36.

Olmedo

Hernández

Pla

et al. Applicability of h-index in humanities and social sciences achievements evaluation. Libr Inform Serv 2013; 62(12): 299–307.

37.

Menon

. Information spillovers and semicollaborative networks in insurer fraud detection. MIS Quart 2018; 42: 407–426.