Search

To reflect the extent to which science is cited in policy documents, this paper explores the presence of policy document citations for over 18 million Web of Science-indexed publications published between 2010 and 2019. Enabled by the policy document citation data provided by Overton, a searchable index of policy documents worldwide, the results show that there are 3.9% of publications in the dataset cited at least once by policy documents. Policy document citations present a citation delay towards newly published publications and show a stronger predominance to the document types of review and article. Based on the Overton database, publications in the field of Social Sciences and Humanities have the highest relative presence in policy document citations, followed by Life and Earth Sciences and Biomedical and Health Sciences. Our findings shed light not only on the impact of scientific knowledge on the policy-making process, but also on the particular focus of policy documents indexed by Overton on specific research areas., Comment: The 2020 Altmetric Conference

This study analyzed 16,799 journal papers and 98,773 conference papers published by IEEE Xplore in 2016 to investigate the relationships among usage counts, Mendeley readership, and citations through descriptive, regression, and mediation analyses. Differences in the relationship among these metrics between journal and conference papers are also studied. Results showed that there is no significant difference between journal and conference papers in the distribution patterns and accumulation rates of the three metrics. However, the correlation coefficients of the interrelationships between the three metrics were lower in conference papers compared to journal papers. Secondly, funding, international collaboration, and open access are positively associated with all three metrics, except for the case of funding on the usage metrics of conference papers. Furthermore, early Mendeley readership is a better predictor of citations than early usage counts and performs better for journal papers. Finally, we reveal that early Mendeley readership partially mediates between early usage counts and citation counts in the journal and conference papers. The main difference is that conference papers rely more on the direct effect of early usage counts on citations. This study contributes to expanding the existing knowledge on the relationships among usage counts, Mendeley readership, and citations in journal and conference papers, providing new insights into the relationship between the three metrics through mediation analysis., Comment: 23 pages, 7 figures

Press releases about scholarly news are brief statements provided in advance to the press, including a description of the most relevant findings of one or more accepted scientific publications, usually under the condition that journalists will adhere to an embargo until the publication date. The existence of centralized platforms such as EurekAlert! allows press releases to be disseminated online as independent news articles. Press releases can include additional material (e.g., interviews, commentaries, explanatory tables, figures, media, recommended readings), which turn them into online objects with analytical value of their own. The objective of this work is to illustrate how press releases can be quantitatively analyzed applying similar tools and approaches as those applied in scientometric research (SCI). To achieve this goal, a scientometric inspired analytical framework is proposed based on the formulation of spaces of interaction of objects, actors, and impacts. As such, the framework proposed considers press releases as science communication (SCO) objects, produced by different SCO actors (e.g., journalists), and the subject of receiving impact (e.g., tweets, links). To carry out this analysis, all press releases published by EurekAlert! from 1996 until 2021 (455,703 press releases), all tweets including at least one URL referring to a EurekAlert! press release (1,364,563 tweets), and all webpages with at least one URL referring to a EurekAlert! press release (54,089,233 webpages) have been studied. We argue that the large volume of press releases published and their online dissemination make these objects relevant in the measurement of SCO-SCI interactions., Comment: 27 pages, 5 tables, 6 figures

Scientific institutions play a crucial role in driving intellectual, social, and technological progress. Their capacity to innovate depends mainly on their ability to attract, retain, and nurture scientific talent and ultimately make it available to other organizations, industries, or the economy. As researchers change institutions during their careers, their skills are also transferred. The extent and mechanisms by which academic institutions manage their internal portfolio of scientific skills by attracting and sending researchers are far from being understood. We examine 25 million publication histories of 9.2 million scientists extracted from a large-scale bibliographic database covering thousands of research institutions worldwide to understand how the skills of mobile scientists align with those present in-house. We find a clear association between top-ranked institutions and greater skill alignment, i.e., the degree to which skills of incoming academics match those of their colleagues at the institution. We uncover similar high-alignment for scientists leaving top-ranked institutions. This type of academic alignment is more pronounced in engineering and life, health, earth, and physical sciences than in mathematics, computer science, social sciences, and the humanities. We show that over the past two decades, institutions generally have become more closely aligned in their overall skill profiles. We interpret these results in terms of levels of proactive management of the composition of the scientific workforce, diversity, and internal collaboration strategies at the institutional level.

Universities face increasing demands to improve their visibility, public outreach, and online presence. There is a broad consensus that scientific reputation significantly increases the attention universities receive. However, in most cases estimates of scientific reputation are based on composite or weighted indicators and absolute positions in university rankings. In this study, we adopt a more granular approach to assessment of universities' scientific performance using a multidimensional set of indicators from the Leiden Ranking and testing their individual effects on university Wikipedia page views. We distinguish between international and local attention and find a positive association between research performance and Wikipedia attention which holds for regions and linguistic areas. Additional analysis shows that productivity, scientific impact, and international collaboration have a curvilinear effect on universities' Wikipedia attention. This finding suggests that there may be other factors than scientific reputation driving the general public's interest in universities. Our study adds to a growing stream of work which views altmetrics as tools to deepen science-society interactions rather than direct measures of impact and recognition of scientific outputs.

The last decade of altmetrics research has demonstrated that altmetrics have a low to moderate correlation with citations, depending on the platform and the discipline, among other factors. Most past studies used academic works as their unit of analysis to determine whether the attention they received on Twitter was a good predictor of academic engagement. Our work revisits the relationship between tweets and citations where the tweet itself is the unit of analysis, and the question is to determine if, at the individual level, the act of tweeting an academic work can shed light on the likelihood of the act of citing that same work. We model this relationship by considering the research activity of the tweeter and its relationship to the tweeted work. Results show that tweeters are more likely to cite works affiliated with their same institution, works published in journals in which they also have published, and works in which they hold authorship. It finds that the older the academic age of a tweeter the less likely they are to cite what they tweet, though there is a positive relationship between citations and the number of works they have published and references they have accumulated over time.

Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world and is also a frequent subject of scientific research. However, the analytical possibilities of Wikipedia information have not yet been analyzed considering at the same time both a large volume of pages and attributes. The main objective of this work is to offer a methodological framework and an open knowledge graph for the informetric large-scale study of Wikipedia. Features of Wikipedia pages are compared with those of scientific publications to highlight the (di)similarities between the two types of documents. Based on this comparison, different analytical possibilities that Wikipedia and its various data sources offer are explored, ultimately offering a set of metrics meant to study Wikipedia from different analytical dimensions. In parallel, a complete dedicated dataset of the English Wikipedia was built (and shared) following a relational model. Finally, a descriptive case study is carried out on the English Wikipedia dataset to illustrate the analytical potential of the knowledge graph and its metrics.

The role played by research scholars in the dissemination of scientific knowledge on social media has always been a central topic in social media metrics (altmetrics) research. Different approaches have been implemented to identify and characterize active scholars on social media platforms like Twitter. Some limitations of past approaches were their complexity and, most importantly, their reliance on licensed scientometric and altmetric data. The emergence of new open data sources like OpenAlex or Crossref Event Data provides opportunities to identify scholars on social media using only open data. This paper presents a novel and simple approach to match authors from OpenAlex with Twitter users identified in Crossref Event Data. The matching procedure is described and validated with ORCID data. The new approach matches nearly 500,000 matched scholars with their Twitter accounts with a level of high precision and moderate recall. The dataset of matched scholars is described and made openly available to the scientific community to empower more advanced studies of the interactions of research scholars on Twitter.

The study of how science is discussed and how scholarly actors interact on social media has increasingly become popular in the field of scientometrics in recent years. While most prior studies focused on research outputs discussed on global platforms, such as Twitter or Facebook, the presence of scholarly journals on local platforms was seldom studied, especially in the Chinese social media context. To fill this gap, this study investigates the uptake of WeChat (a Chinese social network app) by the Chinese scholarly journals indexed by the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI). The results show that 65.3% of CSSCI-indexed journals have created WeChat public accounts and posted over 193 thousand WeChat posts in total. At the journal level, bibliometric indicators (e.g., citations, downloads, and journal impact factors) and WeChat indicators (e.g., clicks, likes, replies, and recommendations) are weakly correlated with each other, reinforcing the idea of fundamentally differentiated dimensions of indicators between bibliometrics and social media metrics. Results also show that journals with WeChat public accounts slightly outperform those without WeChat public accounts in terms of citation impact, suggesting that the WeChat presence of scientific journals is mostly positively associated with their citation impact.

Every year many scholars are funded by the China Scholarship Council (CSC). The CSC is a funding agency established by the Chinese government with the main initiative of training Chinese scholars to conduct research abroad and to promote international collaboration. In this study, we identified these CSC-funded scholars sponsored by the China Scholarship Council based on the acknowledgments text indexed by the Web of Science. Bibliometric data of their publications were collected to track their scientific mobility in different fields, and to evaluate the performance of the CSC scholarship in promoting international collaboration by sponsoring the mobility of scholars. Papers funded by the China Scholarship Council are mainly from the fields of natural sciences and engineering sciences. There are few CSC-funded papers in the field of social sciences and humanities. CSC-funded scholars from mainland China have the United States, Australia, Canada, and some European countries, such as Germany, the UK, and the Netherlands, as their preferential mobility destinations across all fields of science. CSC-funded scholars published most of their papers with international collaboration during the mobility period, with a decrease in the share of international collaboration after the support of the scholarship., Comment: The 17th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI 2019), Sep 2-5, Rome, Italy

This study explores the societal embeddedness of the websites of research projects. It combines two aims: characterizing research projects based on their weblink relationships, and discovering external societal actors that relate to the projects via weblinks. The study was based on a set of 121 EU-funded research projects and their websites. Domains referring to the websites of the research projects were collected and used in visualizations of co-link relationships. These analyses revealed clusters of topical similarity among the research projects as well as among referring entities. Furthermore, a first step into unveiling potentially relevant stakeholders around research projects was made. Weblink analysis is discussed as an insightful tool for monitoring the internal and external linkages of research projects, representing a relevant application of webometric methods., Comment: Research in progress paper accepted for oral presentation at the 18th International Conference on Scientometrics & Informetrics (2021)

Unlike most bibliometric studies focusing on publications, taking Big Data research as a case study, we introduce a novel bibliometric approach to unfold the status of a given scientific community from an individual level perspective. We study the academic age, production, and research focus of the community of authors active in Big Data research. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is selected as a reference area for comparative purposes. Results show that the academic realm of "Big Data" is a growing topic with an expanding community of authors, particularly of new authors every year. Compared to AI, Big Data attracts authors with a longer academic age, who can be regarded to have accumulated some publishing experience before entering the community. Despite the highly skewed distribution of productivity amongst researchers in both communities, Big Data authors have higher values of both research focus and production than those of AI. Considering the community size, overall academic age, and persistence of publishing on the topic, our results support the idea of Big Data as a research topic with attractiveness for researchers. We argue that the community-focused indicators proposed in this study could be generalized to investigate the development and dynamics of other research fields and topics.

ORCID is a scientific infrastructure created to solve the problem of author name ambiguity. Over the years ORCID has also become a useful source for studying academic activities reported by researchers. Our objective in this research was to use ORCID to analyze one of these research activities: the publication of datasets. We illustrate how the identification of datasets that shared in researchers' ORCID profiles enables the study of the characteristics of the researchers who have produced them. To explore the relevance of ORCID to study data sharing practices we obtained all ORCID profiles reporting at least one dataset in their "works" list, together with information related to the individual researchers producing the datasets. The retrieved data was organized and analyzed in a SQL database hosted at CWTS. Our results indicate that DataCite is by far the most important data source for providing information about datasets recorded in ORCID. There is also a substantial overlap between DataCite records with other repositories (Figshare, Dryad, and Zenodo). The analysis of the distribution of researchers producing datasets shows that the top six countries with more data producers, also have a relatively higher percentage of people who have produced datasets out of total researchers with datasets than researchers in the total ORCID. By disciplines, researchers that belong to the areas of Natural Sciences and Medicine and Life Sciences are those with the largest amount of reported datasets. Finally, we observed that researchers who have started their PhD around 2015 published their first dataset earlier that those researchers that started their PhD before. The work concludes with some reflections of the possibilities of ORCID as a relevant source for research on data sharing practices., Comment: Paper accepted for publication in Scientometrics

Knowledge production increasingly relies on mobility. However, its role as a mechanism for knowledge recombination and dissemination remains largely unknown. Based on 1,244,080 Web of Science publications from 1,435,729 authors that we used to construct a panel dataset, we study the impact of inter-regional publishing and scientists' mobility in fostering the workforce composition of European countries during 2008-2017. Specifically, we collect information on scientists who have published in one region and then published elsewhere, and explore some determinants of regional and international mobility. Preliminary findings suggest that while talent pools of researchers are increasingly international, their movements seem to be steered by geographical structures. Future research will investigate the impact of mobility on the regional structure of scientific fields by accounting for the appearance and disappearance of research topics over time., Comment: Research in Progress Paper in ISSI conference 2019 (Rome), 6 pages

Situations in which no scientific consensus has been reached due to either insufficient, inconclusive or contradicting findings place strain on governments and public organizations which are forced to take action under circumstances of uncertainty. In this chapter, we focus on the case of COVID-19, its effects on children and the public debate around the reopening of schools. The aim is to better understand the relationship between policy interventions in the face of an uncertain and rapidly changing knowledge landscape and the subsequent use of scientific information in public debates related to the policy interventions. Our approach is to combine scientific information from journal articles and preprints with their appearance in the popular media, including social media. First, we provide a picture of the different scientific areas and approaches, by which the effects of COVID-19 on children are being studied. Second, we identify news media and social media attention around the COVID-19 scientific output related to children and schools. We focus on policies and media responses in three countries: Spain, South Africa and the Netherlands. These countries have followed very different policy actions with regard to the reopening of schools and represent very different policy approaches to the same problem. We analyse the activity in (social) media around the debate between COVID-19, children and school closures by focusing on the use of references to scientific information in the debate. Finally, we analyse the dominant topics that emerge in the news outlets and the online debates. We draw attention to illustrative cases of miscommunication related to scientific output and conclude the chapter by discussing how information from scientific publication, the media and policy actions shape the public discussion in the context of a global health pandemic.

Human migration and mobility drives major societal phenomena including epidemics, economies, innovation, and the diffusion of ideas. Although human mobility and migration have been heavily constrained by geographic distance throughout the history, advances and globalization are making other factors such as language and culture increasingly more important. Advances in neural embedding models, originally designed for natural language, provide an opportunity to tame this complexity and open new avenues for the study of migration. Here, we demonstrate the ability of the model word2vec to encode nuanced relationships between discrete locations from migration trajectories, producing an accurate, dense, continuous, and meaningful vector-space representation. The resulting representation provides a functional distance between locations, as well as a digital double that can be distributed, re-used, and itself interrogated to understand the many dimensions of migration. We show that the unique power of word2vec to encode migration patterns stems from its mathematical equivalence with the gravity model of mobility. Focusing on the case of scientific migration, we apply word2vec to a database of three million migration trajectories of scientists derived from the affiliations listed on their publication records. Using techniques that leverage its semantic structure, we demonstrate that embeddings can learn the rich structure that underpins scientific migration, such as cultural, linguistic, and prestige relationships at multiple levels of granularity. Our results provide a theoretical foundation and methodological framework for using neural embeddings to represent and understand migration both within and beyond science., Comment: 44 pages (main text), 102 pages total. 5 figures (main text), 32 figures in supporting information

This study investigates the scientific mobility and international collaboration networks in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region between 2008 and 2017. By using affiliation metadata available in scientific publications, we analyse international scientific mobility flows and collaboration linkages. Three complementary approaches allow us to obtain a detailed characterization of scientific mobility. First, we uncover the main destinations and origins of mobile scholars for each country. Results reveal geographical, cultural and historical proximities. Cooperation programs also contribute to explain some of the observed flows. Second, we use the academic age. The average academic age of migrant scholars in MENA was about 12.4 years. The academic age group 6-to-10 years is the most common for both emigrant and immigrant scholars. Immigrants are relatively younger than emigrants, except for Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, and Turkey. Scholars who migrated to Gulf Cooperation Council countries, Jordan and Morocco were in average younger than emigrants by 1.5 year from the same countries. Third, we analyse gender differences. We observe a clear gender gap: Male scholars represent the largest group of migrants in MENA. We conclude discussing the policy relevance of the scientific mobility and collaboration aspects., Comment: 37 pages, 9 figures, 5 tables

Sufficient data presence is one of the key preconditions for applying metrics in practice. Based on both Altmetric.com data and Mendeley data collected up to 2019, this paper presents a state-of-the-art analysis of the presence of 12 kinds of altmetric events for nearly 12.3 million Web of Science publications published between 2012 and 2018. Results show that even though an upward trend of data presence can be observed over time, except for Mendeley readers and Twitter mentions, the overall presence of most altmetric data is still low. The majority of altmetric events go to publications in the fields of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities, and Life and Earth Sciences. As to research topics, the level of attention received by research topics varies across altmetric data, and specific altmetric data show different preferences for research topics, on the basis of which a framework for identifying hot research topics is proposed and applied to detect research topics with higher levels of attention garnered on certain altmetric data source. Twitter mentions and policy document citations were selected as two examples to identify hot research topics of interest of Twitter users and policy-makers, respectively, shedding light on the potential of altmetric data in monitoring research trends of specific social attention.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by a bulk of scientific research and related Twitter discussions. To unravel the public concerns about the COVID-19 crisis reflected in the science-based Twitter conversations, this study tracked the Twitter attention around the COVID-19 research efforts during the first three months of 2020. On the basis of nearly 1.4 million Twitter mentions of 6,162 COVID-19-related scientific publications, we investigated the temporal tweeting dynamic and the Twitter users involved in the online discussions around COVID-19-related research. The results show that the quantity of Twitter mentions of COVID-19-related publications was on rising. Scholarly-oriented Twitter users played an influential role in disseminating research outputs on COVID-19, with their tweets being frequently retweeted. Over time, a change in the focus of the Twitter discussions can be observed, from the initial attention to virological and clinical research to more practical topics, such as the potential treatments, the countermeasures by the governments, the healthcare measures, and the influences on the economy and society, in more recent times., Comment: 21 pages, 2 tables, 7 figures

The implementation of policies promoting the adoption of an Open Science culture must be accompanied by indicators that allow monitoring the penetration of such policies and their potential effects on research publishing and sharing practices. This study presents indicators of Open Access (OA) penetration at the institutional level for universities worldwide. By combining data from Web of Science, Unpaywall and the Leiden Ranking disambiguation of institutions, we track OA coverage of universities' output for 963 institutions. This paper presents the methodological challenges, conceptual discrepancies and limitations and discusses further steps needed to move forward the discussion on fostering Open Access and Open Science practices and policies., Comment: Paper accepted for publication in PeerJ. Supplemental material at doi:10.5281/zenodo.3874959

Taking the research area of Big Data as a case study, we propose an approach for exploring how academic topics shift through the interactions among audiences across different altmetric sources. Data used is obtained from Web of Science (WoS) and Altmetric.com, with a focus on Blog, News, Policy, Wikipedia, and Twitter. Author keywords from publications and terms from online events are extracted as the main topics of the publications and the online discussion of their audiences at Altmetric. Different measures are applied to determine the (dis)similarities between the topics put forward by the publication authors and those by the online audiences. Results show that overall there are substantial differences between the two sets of topics around Big Data scientific research. The main exception is Twitter, where high-frequency hashtags in tweets have a stronger concordance with the author keywords in publications. Among the online communities, Blogs and News show a strong similarity in the terms commonly used, while Policy documents and Wikipedia articles exhibit the strongest dissimilarity in considering and interpreting Big Data related research. Specifically, the audiences not only focus on more easy-to-understand academic topics related to social or general issues, but also extend them to a broader range of topics in their online discussions. This study lays the foundations for further investigations about the role of online audiences in the transformation of academic topics across altmetric sources, and the degree of concern and reception of scholarly contents by online communities.

Sustainable Development Goals are the blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for society. Its legacy is linked with the Millennium Development Goals, set up in 2000. A bibliometric analysis was conducted to 1) measure "core" research output from 2000-2017, with the aim to map the global research of sustainability goals, 2) describe thematic specialization based on keywords co-occurrence analysis and strongest citation burst, 3) present a methodology to classify scientific output (based on an ad-hoc glossary) and assess SDGs interconnections. Sustainability goals publications (core+expand based on direct citations) were identified in-house CWTS Web of Science by using search terms in titles, abstracts, and keywords. 25,299 bibliographic records were analyzed, from which 21,653 (85.59%) are from HEIs and research centres (RC). The purpose of this paper is to analyze the role of these organizations in sustainability research. The findings reveal the increasing participation of these organizations in this research (660 institutions in 2000-2005 to 1744 institutions involved in 2012-2017). In terms of specialization, some institutions present a higher production and specialization on the topic (e.g., London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and World Health Organization); however, others present less production but higher specialization (e.g., Stockholm Environment Institute). Regarding the topics, health (especially in developing countries), women and socio-economic aspects are the most prominent ones. Moreover, it is observed the interlinked nature of SDGs between some SDGs in research output (e.g., SDG11 and SDG3). This study provides important orientation for HEIs and RCs in terms of Research, Development and Innovation (R&D+i) to respond to major societal challenges and could be useful for the policymakers in order to promote the research agenda on this topic.

This paper investigates the stability of Twitter counts of scientific publications over time. For this, we conducted an analysis of the availability statuses of over 2.6 million Twitter mentions received by the 1,154 most tweeted scientific publications recorded by Altmetric.com up to October 2017. Results show that of the Twitter mentions for these highly tweeted publications, about 14.3% have become unavailable by April 2019. Deletion of tweets by users is the main reason for unavailability, followed by suspension and protection of Twitter user accounts. This study proposes two measures for describing the Twitter dissemination structures of publications: Degree of Originality (i.e., the proportion of original tweets received by a paper) and Degree of Concentration (i.e., the degree to which retweets concentrate on a single original tweet). Twitter metrics of publications with relatively low Degree of Originality and relatively high Degree of Concentration are observed to be at greater risk of becoming unstable due to the potential disappearance of their Twitter mentions. In light of these results, we emphasize the importance of paying attention to the potential risk of unstable Twitter counts, and the significance of identifying the different Twitter dissemination structures when studying the Twitter metrics of scientific publications.

This paper presents a novel methodological framework by which the effects of globalization on international collaboration can be studied and understood. Using the cosine similarity of the disciplinary and partner profiles of countries by collaboration types it is possible to analyse the effects of globalization and the costs and benefits of an increasing global networked research system., Comment: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference 2019 (ISSI/STI 2019), Rome, Italy, 2-5 September 2019

This paper presents a first attempt to analyse Open Access integration at the institutional level. For this, we combine information from Unpaywall and the Leiden Ranking to offer basic OA indicators for universities. We calculate the overall number of Open Access publications for 930 universities worldwide. OA indicators are also disaggregated by green, gold and hybrid Open Access. We then explore differences between and within countries and offer a general ranking of universities based on the proportion of their output which is openly accessible., Comment: Paper accepted for oral presentation at the ISSI 2019 Conference held in Rome 2-5 September, 2019. Corrected figure 2 and renumbered some figures

This chapter approaches, both from a theoretical and practical perspective, the most important principles and conceptual frameworks that can be considered in the application of social media metrics for scientific evaluation. We propose conceptually valid uses for social media metrics in research evaluation. The chapter discusses frameworks and uses of these metrics as well as principles and recommendations for the consideration and application of current (and potentially new) metrics in research evaluation., Comment: Forthcoming in Glanzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch U., Thelwall, M. (2018). Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Springer

This paper presents and describes the methodological opportunities offered by bibliometric data to produce indicators of scientific mobility. Large bibliographic datasets of disambiguated authors and their affiliations allow for the possibility of tracking the affiliation changes of scientists. Using the Web of Science as data source, we analyze the distribution of types of mobile scientists for a selection of countries. We explore the possibility of creating profiles of international mobility at the country level, and discuss potential interpretations and caveats. Five countries (Canada, The Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, and the United States) are used as examples. These profiles enable us to characterize these countries in terms of their strongest links with other countries. This type of analysis reveals circulation among and between countries with strong policy implications.

The current ways in which documents are made freely accessible in the Web no longer adhere to the models established Budapest/Bethesda/Berlin (BBB) definitions of Open Access (OA). Since those definitions were established, OA-related terminology has expanded, trying to keep up with all the variants of OA publishing that are out there. However, the inconsistent and arbitrary terminology that is being used to refer to these variants are complicating communication about OA-related issues. This study intends to initiate a discussion on this issue, by proposing a conceptual model of OA. Our model features six different dimensions (prestige, user rights, stability, immediacy, peer-review, and cost). Each dimension allows for a range of different options. We believe that by combining the options in these six dimensions, we can arrive at all the current variants of OA, while avoiding ambiguous and/or arbitrary terminology. This model can be an useful tool for funders and policy makers who need to decide exactly which aspects of OA are necessary for each specific scenario., Comment: 8 pages, 1 figure. Accepted as oral presentation in 23rd STI conference (2018)

This article uses Google Scholar (GS) as a source of data to analyse Open Access (OA) levels across all countries and fields of research. All articles and reviews with a DOI and published in 2009 or 2014 and covered by the three main citation indexes in the Web of Science (2,269,022 documents) were selected for study. The links to freely available versions of these documents displayed in GS were collected. To differentiate between more reliable (sustainable and legal) forms of access and less reliable ones, the data extracted from GS was combined with information available in DOAJ, CrossRef, OpenDOAR, and ROAR. This allowed us to distinguish the percentage of documents in our sample that are made OA by the publisher (23.1%, including Gold, Hybrid, Delayed, and Bronze OA) from those available as Green OA (17.6%), and those available from other sources (40.6%, mainly due to ResearchGate). The data shows an overall free availability of 54.6%, with important differences at the country and subject category levels. The data extracted from GS yielded very similar results to those found by other studies that analysed similar samples of documents, but employed different methods to find evidence of OA, thus suggesting a relative consistency among methods., Comment: 38 pages, 8 figures, 3 tables. Complementary materials available at https://osf.io/fsujy/

This paper presents a methodological framework for developing scientific mobility indicators based on bibliometric data. We identify nearly 16 million individual authors from publications covered in the Web of Science for the 2008-2015 period. Based on the information provided across individuals' publication records, we propose a general classification for analyzing scientific mobility using institutional affiliation changes. We distinguish between migrants--authors who have ruptures with their country of origin--and travelers--authors who gain additional affiliations while maintaining affiliation with their country of origin. We find that 3.7 percent of researchers who have published at least one paper over the period are mobile. Travelers represent 72.7 percent of all mobile scholars, but migrants have higher scientific impact. We apply this classification at the country level, expanding the classification to incorporate the directionality of scientists' mobility (i.e., incoming and outgoing). We provide a brief analysis to highlight the utility of the proposed taxonomy to study scholarly mobility and discuss the implications for science policy., Comment: Paper accepted for publication in Journal of Informetrics

In the last couple of years, the role of Open Access (OA) publishing has become central in science management and research policy. In the UK and the Netherlands, national OA mandates require the scientific community to seriously consider publishing research outputs in OA forms. At the same time, other elements of Open Science are becoming also part of the debate, thus including not only publishing research outputs but also other related aspects of the chain of scientific knowledge production such as open peer review and open data. From a research management point of view, it is important to keep track of the progress made in the OA publishing debate. Until now, this has been quite problematic, given the fact that OA as a topic is hard to grasp by bibliometric methods, as most databases supporting bibliometric data lack exhaustive and accurate open access labelling of scientific publications. In this study, we present a methodology that systematically creates OA labels for large sets of publications processed in the Web of Science database. The methodology is based on the combination of diverse data sources that provide evidence of publications being OA

In this paper we aim at providing a general reflection around the present and future of social media metrics (or altmetrics) and how they could evolve into a new discipline focused on the study of the relationships and interactions between science and social media, in what could be seen as the social media studies of science., Comment: Spanish version: http://revistas.bnjm.cu/index.php/anales/article/view/4172

This is an empirical paper that addresses the role of bilateral and multilateral international co-authorships in the six leading science systems among the ASEAN group of countries (ASEAN6). The paper highlights the different ways that bilateral and multilateral co-authorships structure global networks and the collaborations of the ASEAN6. The paper looks at the influence of the collaboration styles of major collaborating countries of the ASEAN6, particularly the USA and Japan. It also highlights the role of bilateral and multilateral co-authorships in the production of knowledge in the leading specialisations of the ASEAN6. The discussion section offers some tentative explanations for major dynamics evident in the results and summarises the next steps in this research., Comment: Working paper presented at the Globelics Conference 2017

In this paper we present a novel methodology for identifying scholars with a Twitter account. By combining bibliometric data from Web of Science and Twitter users identified by Altmetric.com we have obtained the largest set of individual scholars matched with Twitter users made so far. Our methodology consists of a combination of matching algorithms, considering different linguistic elements of both author names and Twitter names; followed by a rule-based scoring system that weights the common occurrence of several elements related with the names, individual elements and activities of both Twitter users and scholars matched. Our results indicate that about 2% of the overall population of scholars in the Web of Science is active on Twitter. By domain we find a strong presence of researchers from the Social Sciences and the Humanities. Natural Sciences is the domain with the lowest level of scholars on Twitter. Researchers on Twitter also tend to be younger than those that are not on Twitter. As this is a bibliometric-based approach, it is important to highlight the reliance of the method on the number of publications produced and tweeted by the scholars, thus the share of scholars on Twitter ranges between 1% and 5% depending on their level of productivity. Further research is suggested in order to improve and expand the methodology., Comment: Conference Paper, International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, 2017, Wuhan, China

This paper presents preliminary results on the analysis of tweets to journal articles in the field of Dentistry. We present two case studies in which we critically examine the contents and context that motivate the tweeting of journal articles. We then focus on a specific aspect, the role played by journals on self-promoting their contents and the effect this has on the total number of tweets their papers produce. In a context where many are pushing to the use of altmetrics as an alternative or complement to traditional bibliometric indicators. We find a lack of evidence (and interest) on critically examining the many claims that are being made as to their capability to trace evidences of 'broader forms of impact'. Our first results are not promising and question current approaches being made in the field of altmetrics., Comment: Paper accepted for oral presentation at the STI 2017 Conference held in Paris (France)

This paper explores the characteristics of DataCite to determine its possibilities and potential as a new bibliometric data source to analyze the scholarly production of open data. Open science and the increasing data sharing requirements from governments, funding bodies, institutions and scientific journals has led to a pressing demand for the development of data metrics. As a very first step towards reliable data metrics, we need to better comprehend the limitations and caveats of the information provided by sources of open data. In this paper, we critically examine records downloaded from the DataCite's OAI API and elaborate a series of recommendations regarding the use of this source for bibliometric analyses of open data. We highlight issues related to metadata incompleteness, lack of standardization, and ambiguous definitions of several fields. Despite these limitations, we emphasize DataCite's value and potential to become one of the main sources for data metrics development., Comment: Paper accepted for publication in Journal of Informetrics

This study presents a large scale analysis of the distribution and presence of Mendeley readership scores over time and across disciplines. We study whether Mendeley readership scores (RS) can identify highly cited publications more effectively than journal citation scores (JCS). Web of Science (WoS) publications with DOIs published during the period 2004-2013 and across 5 major scientific fields have been analyzed. The main result of this study shows that readership scores are more effective (in terms of precision/recall values) than journal citation scores to identify highly cited publications across all fields of science and publication years. The findings also show that 86.5% of all the publications are covered by Mendeley and have at least one reader. Also the share of publications with Mendeley readership scores is increasing from 84% in 2004 to 89% in 2009, and decreasing from 88% in 2010 to 82% in 2013. However, it is noted that publications from 2010 onwards exhibit on average a higher density of readership vs. citation scores. This indicates that compared to citation scores, readership scores are more prevalent for recent publications and hence they could work as an early indicator of research impact. These findings highlight the potential and value of Mendeley as a tool for scientometric purposes and particularly as a relevant tool to identify highly cited publications.

In this study we have investigated the relationship between different document characteristics and the number of Mendeley readership counts, tweets, Facebook posts, mentions in blogs and mainstream media for 1.3 million papers published in journals covered by the Web of Science (WoS). It aims to demonstrate that how factors affecting various social media-based indicators differ from those influencing citations and which document types are more popular across different platforms. Our results highlight the heterogeneous nature of altmetrics, which encompasses different types of uses and user groups engaging with research on social media., Comment: Presented at the 21th International Conference in Science & Technology Indicators (STI), 13-16, September, 2016, Valencia, Spain

This paper analyses the potential use of bibliometric data for mapping and applying network analysis to mobility flows. We show case mobility networks at three different levels of aggregation: at the country level, at the city level and at the institutional level. We reflect on the potential uses of bibliometric data to inform research policies with regard to scientific mobility., Comment: Paper presented at the OECD Blue Sky III Forum on Science and Innovation Indicators, Ghent, September 19-21

International scientific mobility is acknowledged to be a key mechanism for the diffusion of knowledge, particularly tacit or 'sticky' knowledge that cannot be transferred without geographical proximity and personal contact, for the incorporation of young researchers into elite transnational scientific networks, and for accessing additional resources or infrastructures that are essential to the research process but located in other places. The inadequacy and lack of appropriate data to assess the phenomenon of researcher mobility has been repeatedly pointed out by scholars and policy makers. This paper presents an exploratory analysis of different typologies of researchers according to their traceable mobility using scientific publications covered in the Web of Science (WoS). We compare two populations of researchers, of the same 'scientific age', based in Spain and The Netherlands. We observe differences in the degree of mobility of Spain and Netherlands based researchers. Factors associated with the different institutional conditions characterizing the two national systems need to be taken into account. First, the Spanish and Dutch university and research systems are different in many ways. Second, there may be very different institutional incentives for mobility in the two systems. More sophisticated bibliometric analyses and comparisons with different 'generations' of researchers, possibly combined with qualitative investigation, will be required to better understand the role and function of national institutional context in both research mobility and research careers., Comment: This paper has been accepted at the STI 2016 Conference held in Valencia, September 14-16

Funding acknowledgements found in scientific publications have been used to study the impact of funding on research since the 1970s. However, no broad scale indexation of that paratextual element was done until 2008, when Thomson Reuters Web of Science started to add funding acknowledgement information to its bibliographic records. As this new information provides a new dimension to bibliometric data that can be systematically exploited, it is important to understand the characteristics of these data and the underlying implications for their use. This paper analyses the presence and distribution of funding acknowledgement data covered in Web of Science. Our results show that prior to 2009 funding acknowledgements coverage is extremely low and therefore not reliable. Since 2008, funding information has been collected mainly for publications indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE); more recently (2015), inclusion of funding texts for publications indexed in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) has been implemented. Arts & Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) content is not indexed for funding acknowledgement data. Moreover, English-language publications are the most reliably covered. Finally, not all types of documents are equally covered for funding information indexation and only articles and reviews show consistent coverage. The characterization of the funding acknowledgement information collected by Thomson Reuters can therefore help understand the possibilities offered by the data but also their limitations.

The article presents three advanced citation-based methods used to detect potential breakthrough papers among very highly cited papers. We approach the detection of such papers from three different perspectives in order to provide different typologies of breakthrough papers. In all three cases we use the classification of scientific publications developed at CWTS based on direct citation relationships. This classification establishes clusters of papers at three levels of aggregation. Papers are clustered based on their similar citation orientations and it is assumed that they are focused on similar research interests. We use the clustering as the context for detecting potential breakthrough papers. We utilize the Characteristics Scores and Scales (CSS) approach to partition citation distributions and implement a specific filtering algorithm to sort out potential highly-cited followers, papers not considered breakthroughs in themselves. After invoking thresholds and filtering, three methods are explored: A very exclusive one where only the highest cited paper in a micro-cluster is considered as a potential breakthrough paper (M1); as well as two conceptually different methods, one that detects potential breakthrough papers among the two percent highest cited papers according to CSS (M2a), and finally a more restrictive version where, in addition to the CSS two percent filter, knowledge diffusion is also taken in as an extra parameter (M2b). The advance citation-based methods are explored and evaluated using specifically validated publication sets linked to different Danish funding instruments including centres of excellence., Comment: Accepted for publication in Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

In this study, the academic status of users of scientific publications in Mendeley is explored in order to analyse the usage pattern of Mendeley users in terms of subject fields, citation and readership impact. The main focus of this study is on studying the filtering capacity of Mendeley readership counts compared to journal citation scores in detecting highly cited WoS publications. Main finding suggests a faster reception of Mendeley readerships as compared to citations across 5 major field of science. The higher correlations of scientific users with citations indicate the similarity between reading and citation behaviour among these users. It is confirmed that Mendeley readership counts filter highly cited publications (PPtop 10%) better than journal citation scores in all subject fields and by most of user types. This result reinforces the potential role that Mendeley readerships could play for informing scientific and alternative impacts., Comment: This paper presented at the 15th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI), 29 Jun-4 July, 2015, Bogazici University, Istanbul (Turkey)

In this paper an analysis of the presence and possibilities of altmetrics for bibliometric and performance analysis is carried out. Using the web based tool Impact Story, we have collected metrics for 20,000 random publications from the Web of Science. We studied the presence and frequency of altmetrics in the set of publications, across fields, document types and also through the years. The main result of the study is that less than 50% of the publications have some kind of altmetrics. The source that provides most metrics is Mendeley, with metrics on readerships for around 37% of all the publications studied. Other sources only provide marginal information. Possibilities and limitations of these indicators are discussed and future research lines are outlined. We also assessed the accuracy of the data retrieved through Impact Story by focusing on the analysis of the accuracy of data from Mendeley; in a follow up study, the accuracy and validity of other data sources not included here will be assessed., Comment: This paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI), 16-19 July 2013, University of Vienna, Austria

With the acceleration of scholarly communication in the digital era, the publication year is no longer a sufficient level of time aggregation for bibliometric and social media indicators. Papers are increasingly cited before they have been officially published in a journal issue and mentioned on Twitter within days of online availability. In order to find a suitable proxy for the day of online publication allowing for the computation of more accurate benchmarks and fine-grained citation and social media event windows, various dates are compared for a set of 58,896 papers published by Nature Publishing Group, PLOS, Springer and Wiley-Blackwell in 2012. Dates include the online date provided by the publishers, the month of the journal issue, the Web of Science indexing date, the date of the first tweet mentioning the paper as well as the Altmetric.com publication and first-seen dates. Comparing these dates, the analysis reveals that large differences exist between publishers, leading to the conclusion that more transparency and standardization is needed in the reporting of publication dates. The date on which the fixed journal article (Version of Record) is first made available on the publisher's website is proposed as a consistent definition of the online date., Comment: accepted for presentation at 15th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) 2015

In this paper we explore the possibility of using bibliographic databases for tracking the geographic origin of surnames. Surnames are used as a proxy to determine the ethnic, genetic or geographic origin of individuals in many fields such as Genetics or Demography; however they could also be used for bibliometric purposes such as the analysis of scientific migration flows. Here we present two relevant methodologies for determining the most probable country to which a surname could be assigned. The first methodology assigns surnames based on the most common country that can be assigned to a surname and the Kullback-Liebler divergence measure. The second method uses the Gini Index to evaluate the assignment of surnames to countries. We test both methodologies with control groups and conclude that, despite needing further analysis on its validity; these methodologies already show promising results., Comment: Paper accepted for oral presentation at the ISSI 2015 Congress. Version 2 corrects the reference to the paper by Waltman & van Eck (2013)

More than 30 years after Cronin's seminal paper on "the need for a theory of citing" (Cronin, 1981), the metrics community is once again in need of a new theory, this time one for so-called "altmetrics". Altmetrics, short for alternative (to citation) metrics -- and as such a misnomer -- refers to a new group of metrics based (largely) on social media events relating to scholarly communication. As current definitions of altmetrics are shaped and limited by active platforms, technical possibilities, and business models of aggregators such as Altmetric.com, ImpactStory, PLOS, and Plum Analytics, and as such constantly changing, this work refrains from defining an umbrella term for these very heterogeneous new metrics. Instead a framework is presented that describes acts leading to (online) events on which the metrics are based. These activities occur in the context of social media, such as discussing on Twitter or saving to Mendeley, as well as downloading and citing. The framework groups various types of acts into three categories -- accessing, appraising, and applying -- and provides examples of actions that lead to visibility and traceability online. To improve the understanding of the acts, which result in online events from which metrics are collected, select citation and social theories are used to interpret the phenomena being measured. Citation theories are used because the new metrics based on these events are supposed to replace or complement citations as indicators of impact. Social theories, on the other hand, are discussed because there is an inherent social aspect to the measurements., Comment: to be published in: Cassidy R. Sugimoto (Ed.). Theories of Informetrics: A Festschrift in Honor of Blaise Cronin