Research Data Explored: Citations versus Altmetrics

TL;DR

This study examines the citation and altmetrics of research data, revealing low citation rates but increasing recent citations, and finds no correlation between citations and altmetrics scores across different data types and repositories.

Contribution

It provides a comparative analysis of citation and altmetrics coverage for research data, highlighting trends, tool effectiveness, and the lack of correlation between traditional citations and altmetrics.

Findings

85% of research data remain uncited

Growing trend in citing data since 2007

No correlation between citations and altmetrics scores

Abstract

The study explores the citedness of research data, its distribution over time and how it is related to the availability of a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) in Thomson Reuters' DCI (Data Citation Index). We investigate if cited research data "impact" the (social) web, reflected by altmetrics scores, and if there is any relationship between the number of citations and the sum of altmetrics scores from various social media-platforms. Three tools are used to collect and compare altmetrics scores, i.e. PlumX, ImpactStory, and Altmetric.com. In terms of coverage, PlumX is the most helpful altmetrics tool. While research data remain mostly uncited (about 85%), there has been a growing trend in citing data sets published since 2007. Surprisingly, the percentage of the number of cited research data with a DOI in DCI has decreased in the last years. Only nine repositories account for research data with DOIs and two or more citations. The number of cited research data with altmetrics scores is even lower (4 to 9%) but shows a higher coverage of research data from the last decade. However, no correlation between the number of citations and the total number of altmetrics scores is observable. Certain data types (i.e. survey, aggregate data, and sequence data) are more often cited and receive higher altmetrics scores.