Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community

TL;DR

This study examines the use and coverage of social media and altmetrics sources among bibliometricians, revealing varied adoption levels and potential for impact measurement.

Contribution

It provides empirical data on social media tool usage and coverage among bibliometricians, highlighting their potential as impact indicators.

Findings

82% of articles in Mendeley libraries

28% coverage in CiteULike

Moderate correlation (.45) between Mendeley bookmarks and Scopus citations

Abstract

Altmetrics, indices based on social media platforms and tools, have recently emerged as alternative means of measuring scholarly impact. Such indices assume that scholars in fact populate online social environments, and interact with scholarly products there. We tested this assumption by examining the use and coverage of social media environments amongst a sample of bibliometricians. As expected, coverage varied: 82% of articles published by sampled bibliometricians were included in Mendeley libraries, while only 28% were included in CiteULike. Mendeley bookmarking was moderately correlated (.45) with Scopus citation. Over half of respondents asserted that social media tools were affecting their professional lives, although uptake of online tools varied widely. 68% of those surveyed had LinkedIn accounts, while Academia.edu, Mendeley, and ResearchGate each claimed a fifth of respondents. Nearly half of those responding had Twitter accounts, which they used both personally and professionally. Surveyed bibliometricians had mixed opinions on altmetrics' potential; 72% valued download counts, while a third saw potential in tracking articles' influence in blogs, Wikipedia, reference managers, and social media. Altogether, these findings suggest that some online tools are seeing substantial use by bibliometricians, and that they present a potentially valuable source of impact data.