Influence of social networking sites on scholarly communication: A study using literature in Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

With the advent of Web 2.0 tools and especially social media, researchers are increasingly active on the Web. This has resulted in a transformation in the scholarly communication process through which researchers share and bookmark research works in online platforms. In the present study, the influence of social networking sites on the field of Artificial Intelligence research was studied. The study analysed the influence of social networking sites on both conference papers and journal articles, as in a field like Artificial Intelligence both channels of research dissemination play important roles. The top 100 cited journal articles and conference papers in Artificial Intelligence published in 2009 and 2013 were analysed for their presence on social networking sites and online reference managers. It was found that amongst social networking sites, Mendeley had the greatest influence on research in Artificial Intelligence. Mendeley played the most remarkable role in transforming scholarly communication with the highest coverage of both journal articles and conference papers for both the years 2009 and 2013. It was found that the influence of social networking sites was greater for journal articles than conference papers, the latter still having a lower average Mendeley readership. The highest correlation between citation counts and Mendeley readership was found for journal articles published in 2009, followed by journal articles published in 2013, conference papers published in 2009 and conference papers published in 2013. The average Mendeley readership was also higher for journal articles than for conference papers. Mendeley readership was also found to be higher for journal articles and conference papers published earlier in time, indicating that research works published earlier in time were more popular in social networking sites and online reference managers.

Keywords

Altmetrics artificial intelligence online reference managers scholarly communication social networking sites

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

Stanton

di Pietro

, et al. (2013) Social media release increases dissemination of original articles in the clinical pain sciences. PloS One 8(7): e68914.

Andersen

(2007) What is Web 2.0? Ideas, Technologies and Implications for Education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch. Bristol: JISC. Available at: http://www.ictliteracy.info/rf.pdf/Web2.0_research.pdf (accessed 14 November 2016).

Bar-Ilan

Haustein

Peters

, et al. (2012) Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the social Web. In: 17th international conference on science and technology indicators (eds Archambault

Gingras

Larivière

), pp. 98–109. Montreal, Canada: Science-Metrix and OST.

Barjak

(2006) The role of the Internet in informal scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57(10): 1350–1367.

Boyd

Ellison

(2010) Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. IEEE Engineering Management Review 3(38): 16–31.

Collins

(2010). Transform global literature circles with Web 2.0. Library Media Connection 29(2): 24–25.

Collins

Hide

(2010) Use and relevance of Web 2.0 resources for researchers. In: Publishing in the networked world: Transforming the nature of communication. 14th international conference on electronic publishing, Helsinki, Finland, 16–18 June 2010, pp. 271–289.

Davidson

(2005) The end of print: Digitization and its consequence-revolutionary changes in scholarly and social communication and in scientific research. International Journal of Toxicology 24(1): 25–34.

Galligan

Dyas-Correia

(2013) Altmetrics: Rethinking the way we measure. Serials Review 39(1): 56–61.

10.

Haustein

(2014) Readership metrics. In: Cronin

Sugimoto

(eds) Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multi-Dimensional Indicators of Performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 327–344.

11.

Haustein

Sugimoto

Larivière

(2015) Guest editorial: Social media in scholarly communication. Aslib Journal of Information Management 67(3). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-03–2015–0047 (accessed 14 November 2016).

12.

Hicks

(2011) Mendeley: A review. Collaborative Librarianship 3(2): 127–129.

13.

Houghton

Rasmussen

Oppenheim

, et al. (2009) Economic Implications of Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models: Exploring the Costs and Benefits. Report for the Joint Information Systems Committee. Bristol: JISC.

14.

Kalogirou

(2003) Artificial intelligence for the modeling and control of combustion processes: A review. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 29(6): 515–566.

15.

Thelwall

Giustini

(2012) Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics 91(2): 461–471.

16.

MacMillan

(2012) Mendeley: Teaching scholarly communication and collaboration through social networking. Library Management 33(8/9): 561–569.

17.

Maflahi

Thelwall

(2015) When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67(1): 191–199.

18.

Mohammadi

Thelwall

(2014) Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65(8): 1627–1638.

19.

Mohammadi

Thelwall

Kousha

(2015a) Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23477.

20.

Mohammadi

Thelwall

Haustein

, et al. (2015b) Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66(9): 1832–1846.

21.

Nentwich

König

(2014) Academia goes Facebook? The potential of social network sites in the scholarly realm. In: Bartling

Friesicke

(eds) Opening Science. Cham: Springer International, pp. 107–124. Available at: http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-00026-8 (accessed 14 November 2016).

22.

O’Reilly

(2007) What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies 1: 17.

23.

Ortega

(2015) Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC’s members. Journal of Informetrics 9(1): 39–49.

24.

Priem

Groth

Taraborelli

(2012) The altmetrics collection. PloS one 7(11): e48753.

25.

Priem

Taraborelli

Groth

, et al. (2010) Altmetrics: A Manifesto. Available at: http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/ (accessed 30 January 2016).

26.

Reher

Haustein

(2010) Social bookmarking in STM: Putting services to the acid test. Online 34(6): 34–42.

27.

Rodgers

Barbrow

(2013) A Look at Altmetrics and its Growing Significance to Research Libraries. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan University Library.

28.

Russell

Norvig

(1995) Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

29.

Sauer

Bialek

Efimova

, et al. (2005) ‘Blogs’ and ‘Wikis’ are valuable software tools for communication within research groups. Artificial Organs 29(1): 82–83.

30.

Schlögl

Gorraiz

Gumpenberger

, et al. (2014) Comparison of downloads, citations and readership data for two information systems journals. Scientometrics 101(2): 1113–1128.

31.

Shehata

AMK

Ellis

Foster

(2015) The impact of information and communication technologies on informal scientific communication: A naturalistic inquiry approach. Library Review 64(6/7): 428–445.

32.

Shrivastava

Mahajan

(2016a) Relationship between citation counts and Mendeley readership metrics: A case of top 100 cited papers in Physics. New Library World 117(3/4): 229–238.

33.

Shrivastava

Mahajan

(2016b) Artificial intelligence research in India: A scientometric analysis. Science & Technology Libraries 35(2): 1–16.

34.

Stewart

Procter

Williams

, et al. (2013) The role of academic publishers in shaping the development of Web 2.0 services for scholarly communication. New Media & Society 15(3): 413–432.

35.

Thelwall

(2015) Why do papers have many Mendeley readers but few Scopus-indexed citations and vice versa? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. DOI: 10.1177/0961000615594867.

36.

Thelwall

Wilson

(2015) Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23501.

37.

Thelwall

Haustein

Larivière

, et al. (2013) Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PloS one 8(5): e64841.

38.

Thelwall

Kousha

Dinsmore

, et al. (2016) Alternative metric indicators for funding scheme evaluations. Aslib Journal of Information Management 68(1): 2–18.