Análise Altmétrica da Produção Científica das Revistas brasileiras em Ciência da Informação Qualis A1 (2011-2017) no Mendeley

Vildeane da Rocha Borba; Gonzalo Rubén Alvarez; Sônia Elisa Caregnato

doi:10.5007/1518-2924.2019.e58658

Online attention at the Mendeley: an altmetric analysis of the scientific output of the Brazilian journals in Information Science Qualis A1 (2011-2017)

Authors

Vildeane da Rocha Borba Universidade Federal de Pernambuco http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2067-9802
Gonzalo Rubén Alvarez Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0677-5865
Sônia Elisa Caregnato Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5676-2763

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2019.e58658

Keywords:

Altmetrics, Scientific journals, Online attention, Mendeley

Abstract

Objective: It analyzes the online attention received in Mendeley by Brazilian journals in Information Science Qualis A1 published in the period of 2011-2017.

Methods: Of qualitative-quantitative and exploratory character, it applied altmetrics for data analysis.

Results: The survey showed that 71.0% of the publications were marked in the Mendeley by at least one user: Transinformação (78.0%), Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação (71.0%) and Informação & Sociedade (67.0%). In the analysis of the markings by occupational profile of the users in Mendeley, masters (22.0%), doctorate (20.0%) and graduate students (16.0%) stand out. Most users are of Brazilian nationality (63.0%), but there are also markers on the European continent: Portugal (10.0%) and Spain (6.0%) and South America: Colombia (8.0%).

Conclusions: Concludes that, Mendeley has proven to be an important social media for the altmetrics and evaluating online attention.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Vildeane da Rocha Borba, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco

Doutoranda do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Comunicação e Informação (PPGCOM) da Faculdade de Biblioteconomia e Comunicação (FABICO) da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Professora do Departamento de Ciência da Informação da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (DCI/UFPE).

Gonzalo Rubén Alvarez, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul

Doutorando do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Comunicação e Informação (PPGCOM) da Faculdade de Biblioteconomia e Comunicação (FABICO) da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Professor do curso de Biblioteconomia EaD da Universidade de Caxias do Sul (UCS). Professor Substituto do curso de Biblioteconomia da FABICO/UFRGS.

Sônia Elisa Caregnato, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul

Doutora em Information Studies pela University of Sheffield, Inglaterra. Professora Associada do Departamento de Ciências da Informação da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS).

References

ADIE, E. Taking the alternative mainstream. El profesional de la información, v. 23, n. 4., 2014. Disponível em: http://www.elprofesionaldelainformacion.com/contenidos/2014/jul/01.pdf. Acesso em: 30 jul. 2018.

ARAÚJO, R. F. de Mídias sociais e comunicação científica: análise altmétrica em artigos de periódicos da ciência da informação. Em Questão, Porto Alegre, v. 21, n. 1, p. 96-109, 2015b. Disponível em: http://seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/EmQuestao/article/view/47918. Acesso em: 30 jul. 2018.

ARAÚJO, R. F. de. Da altmetria à análise de citações: uma análise da revista Datagramazero. Pesquisa Brasileira em Ciência da Informação e Biblioteconomia, João Pessoa, v. 10, n. 1, 2015a. Disponível em: http://periodicos.ufpb.br/index.php/pbcib/article/view/23163. Acesso em: 30 jun. 2018.

BAR-ILAN, J. Astrophysics publications on arXiv, Scopus and Mendeley: a case study. Scientometrics, v. 100, p. 217–225, 2014.

BARROS, M. Altmetrics: métricas alternativas de impacto científico com base em redes sociais. Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação, v. 20, n. 2, p. 19-37, abr./jun. 2015.

BORNMANN, L. Alternative Metrics in Scientometrics: a Meta-Analysis of Research into Three Altmetrics. Scientometrics, v. 103, n. 3, p. 1123–1144, 2015.

CRONIN, B. Bibliometrics and beyond: some thoughts on web-based citation analysis. Journal of Information Science, v. 27, n. 1, p. 1-7, 2001.

HAUNSCHILD, R.; BORNMANN, L. Normalization of Mendeley reader counts for impact assessment. Journal of Informetrics, v. 10, p. 62–73, 2016.

HAUSTEIN, S. et al. Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics, New York, v. 101, n. 2, p. 1145-1163, 2014.

HAUSTEIN, S.; BOWMAN, T. D.; COSTAS, R. Interpreting “altmetrics”: viewing actson social media through the lens of citation and social theories. In: SUGIMOTO, C. R. (Ed.). Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication. Frankfurt: De Gruyter, 2016.

HEFCE - Higher Education Funding Council for England. Decisions on assessing research impact. 2011. Disponível em: http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/decisionsonassessingresearchimpact/01_11.pdf. Acesso em: 15 fev. 2018.

HOLMBERG, K.; VAINIO, J. Why do some research articles receive more online attention and higher altmetrics? Reasons for online success according to the authors. Scientometrics, New York, v. 116, p. 435–447, 2018.

KEMP, S. Digital in 2017 Global Overview: a collection of internet, social media, and mobile data from around the world. London: we are social, 2018. Disponível em: https://wearesocial.com/special-reports/digital-in-2017-global-overview. Acesso em: 15 jan. 2018.

LI, X.; THELWALL, M. F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INDICATORS, 17., 2012, Montreal. Proceedings… Montreal: Science‐Metrix and OST, 2012. p. 541-551. Disponível em: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.363.3171. Acesso em: 30 jul. 2018.

LI, X.; THELWALL, M.; GIUSTINI, D. Validating Online Reference Managers for Scholarly Impact Measurement. Scientometrics, New York, v. 91, n. 2, p. 461–471, 2012.

LIU, Y. et al. Multi-views on Nature Index of Chinese academic institutions. Scientometrics, New York, v. 114, p. 823–837, 2018.

LOACH, T.; ADAMS, J. Altmetric ‘mentions’ and the identification of research impact. Nesta Working Paper, n. 3, 2015. Disponível em: http://t.co/obZ15wL8TY. Acesso em: 30 jul. 2018.

MAFLAHI, N.; THELWALL, M. When are Readership Counts as Useful as Citation Counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS Journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 67, n. 1, p. 191–199, 2015.

MELERO, R. Altmetrics: a complement to conventional metrics. Biochemia Medica, v. 25, n. 2, p. 152-160, 2015.

MESCHEDE, C.; SIEBENLIST, T. Cross-metric compatability and inconsistencies of altmetrics. Scientometrics, New York, v. 115, p. 283–297, 2018.

MOHAMMADI, E.; THELWALL, M.; KOUSHA, K. Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 67, n. 5, p. 1198-1209, 2016.

NAUDÉ, F. Comparing downloads, Mendeley readership and Google Scholar citations as indicators of article performance. EJISDC, v. 78, n. 4, p. 1-25, 2017.

PIWOWAR, H. Introduction altmetrics: what, why and where? Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 39, n. 4, p. 8-9, 2013.

POOLADIAN, A.; BORREGO, A. A longitudinal study of the bookmarking of library and information science literature in Mendeley. Journal of Informetrics, v. 10, n. 4, p. 1135–1142, 2016.

PRIEM, J. et al. Altmetrics: a manifesto. 2010. Disponível em: http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/. Acesso em: 13 nov. 2016.

ROUSSEAU, R.; YE, F. Y. A multi-metric approach for research evaluation. Chinese Science Bulletin, v. 58, n. 26, p. 3288-3290, 2013.

SOUZA, I. V. P. de; ALMEIDA, C. H. M. de. Introdução à altmetria: métricas alternativas de comunicação científica. In: ENCONTRO NACIONAL DE PESQUISA EM CIÊNCIA DA INFORMAÇÃO, 14., 2013, Florianópolis. Anais… Florianópolis: ANCIB, 2013. Disponível em: http://enancib2013.ufsc.br/index.php/enancib2013/XIVenancib/paper/viewFile/252/289. Acesso em: 30 jul. 2018.

SUGIMOTO, C. R. et al. Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: a review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 68, n. 9, p. 2037-2062, 2017.

TAYLOR, M. Exploring the boundaries: How altmetrics can expand our vision of scholarly communication and social impact. Information Standards Quarterly, v. 25, n. 2, p. 27–32, 2013.

THELWALL, M. Introduction to Webometrics: Quantitative Web Research for the Social Sciences. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool, 2009.

THELWALL, M. Why do papers have many Mendeley readers but few Scopus-indexed citations and vice versa?. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, v. 49, n. 2, p. 144–151, 2017.

THELWALL, M.; SUD, P. Mendeley Readership Counts: An Investigation of Temporal and Disciplinary Differences. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 67, n. 12, p. 3036-3050, 2015.

THELWALL, M.; MAFLAHI, N. Are Scholarly Articles Disproportionately Read in their Own Country? An Analysis of Mendeley Readers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 66, n. 6, p. 1124-1135, 2014.

ZAHEDI, Z.; COSTAS, R.; WOUTERS, P. How Well Developed are Altmetrics? A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of the Presence of “Alternative Metrics” in Scientific Publications. Scientometrics, New York, v. 101, n. 2, p. 1491–1513, 2014.

Downloads

Published

2019-05-06

How to Cite

BORBA, Vildeane da Rocha; ALVAREZ, Gonzalo Rubén; CAREGNATO, Sônia Elisa. Online attention at the Mendeley: an altmetric analysis of the scientific output of the Brazilian journals in Information Science Qualis A1 (2011-2017). Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, [S. l.], v. 24, n. 55, p. 1–20, 2019. DOI: 10.5007/1518-2924.2019.e58658. Disponível em: https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/1518-2924.2019.e58658. Acesso em: 10 may. 2024.

Download Citation

Issue

Vol. 24 No. 55 (2019)

Section

Articles

License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The author must guarantee that:

there is full consensus among all the coauthors in approving the final version of the document and its submission for publication.
the work is original, and when the work and/or words from other people were used, they were properly acknowledged.

Plagiarism in all of its forms constitutes an unethical publication behavior and is unacceptable. Encontros Bibli has the right to use software or any other method of plagiarism detection.

All manuscripts submitted to Encontros Bibli go through plagiarism and self-plagiarism identification. Plagiarism identified during the evaluation process will result in the filing of the submission. In case plagiarism is identified in a manuscript published in the journal, the Editor-in-Chief will conduct a preliminary investigation and, if necessary, will make a retraction.

This journal, following the recommendations of the Open Source movement, provides full open access to its content. By doing this, the authors keep all of their rights allowing Encontros Bibli to publish and make its articles available to the whole community.

Encontros Bibli content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Any user has the right to:

Share - copy, download, print or redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt - remix, transform and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

According to the following terms:

Attribution - You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions - You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything that the license permits.