Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards a better understanding of Facebook Altmetrics in LIS field: assessing the characteristics of involved paper, user and post

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Facebook mentions to scholarly papers have provided a novel way for reflecting and measuring the process of informal scientific communication. To uncover the underlying mechanism of Facebook Altmetrics, it is essential to investigate characteristics of its contextual data. Take library and information science papers for empirical study, three categories of contextual data were gathered, namely data of mentioned LIS papers, data of Facebook users and data of Facebook post. Hybrid methods including statistical analysis, content analysis and visualization analysis were adopted to analyze the data. Results show that: (1) Positive open access status and active Facebook account would help get scholarly paper mentioned but would not boost the number of Facebook mentions. Number of citations, number of collaborative institutions, and number of collaborative countries showed a significantly positive correlation with the number of Facebook mentions. Health information management was identified to be the most mentioned research topic while bibliometrics and scientific evaluation has received on average the highest number of Facebook mentions. (2) Scientific Facebook users that mention LIS papers were widely scattered geographically but dominated by USA, Spain, Germany, Brazil and Australia. Institutional users (89%) and academic users (84%) are prevailing, especially universities (14%), research institutes (12%), libraries (11%), academic associations (9%) and commercial organizations (8%). (3) Most scientific Facebook posts were relatively short, while the language distribution was less skewed than that of scientific tweets. The post content is mostly a combination of text, links, and pictures and with neutral sentiment. Different types of users have demonstrated significantly different style of content and concerned topics. These findings indicate that Facebook mentions to LIS papers mainly reflect the institutional level advocacy and attention, with low level of engagement, and could be influenced by several features including collaborative patterns and research topics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barthel S, Tönnies S, Köhncke B, Siehndel P., & Balke W.T. (2015) What does Twitter Measure?—Influence of diverse user groups in Altmetrics. In 15th ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL). https://doi.org/10.1145/2756406.2756913

  • Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). Does quality and content matter for citedness? A comparison with paratextual factors and over time. Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 419–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, T. D. (2015). Investigating the use of affordances and framing techniques by scholars to manage personal and professional impressions on Twitter. Indiana University.

  • Costas, R. (2017). Towards the social media studies of science: Social media metrics, present and future. Bibliotecas. Anales De Investigación, 13(1), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehdarirad, T., Didegah, F., & Didegah, A. (2019). Social media visibility of open access versus non-open access articles: A case study of life sciences & biomedicine. ISSI.

  • Didegah, F., Bowman, T. D., & Holmberg, K. (2018a). On the differences between citations and Altmetrics: An investigation of factors driving Altmetrics versus citations for Finnish articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69, 832–843. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Didegah, F., Mejlgaard, N., & Sørensen, M. P. (2018b). Investigating the quality of interactions and public engagement around scientific papers on Twitter. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 960–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal, and document properties. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 861–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enkhbayar, A., Haustein, S., Barata, G., & Alperin, J. P. (2020). How much research shared on Facebook happens outside of public pages and groups? A comparison of public and private online activity around PLOS ONE papers. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(2), 749–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2022a). User engagement with scholarly tweets of scientific papers: A large-scale and cross-disciplinary analysis. Scientometrics, 127(8), 4523–4546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, Z., Dudek, J., & Costas, R. (2022b). Facing the volatility of tweets in altmetric research. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73(8), 1192–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 323–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (2019). The presentation of self in everyday life. Threepenny Review, 21(116), 14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hootsuite. (2019). We are social. Digital in 2019. Retrieved March 23, 2021, from https://wearesocial.com/blog/2019/01/digital-2019-global-internet-use-accelerates.

  • Hutto, C., & Gilbert, E. (2014). VADER: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 8(1), 216–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Low, W. Y., & Ng, K. H. (2011). International collaboration in journal publishing: Enhancing quality and visibility. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 23(5), 649–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lui, M., & Baldwin, T. (2012). langid.py: An Off-the-shelf language identification tool. Proceeding of the ACL 2012 system demonstrations (pp. 25–30). Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Mohammadi, E., Barahmand, N., & Thelwall, M. (2019). Who shares health and medical scholarly articles on Facebook? Learned Publishing.

  • Na, J. C., & Ye, Y. E. (2017). Content analysis of scholarly discussions of psychological academic articles on Facebook. Online Information Review, 41(3), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-02-2016-0058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nair, L. B., & Gibbert, M. (2016). What makes a ‘good’ title and (how) does it matter for citations? A review and general model of article title attributes in management science. Scientometrics, 107, 1331–1359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raamkumar, A. S., Ganesan, S., Jothiramalingam, K., Selva, M. K., Erdt, M., & Theng, Y. L. (2018). Investigating the characteristics and research impact of sentiments in tweets with links to computer science research papers. Maturity and Innovation in Digital Libraries, 11279, 71–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringelhan, S., Wollersheim, J., & Welpe, I. M. (2015). I like, I cite? Do Facebook likes predict the impact of scientific work? PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0134389. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Maflahi, N. (2015). Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? An analysis of Mendeley readers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(6), 1124–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsou, A., Bowman, T. D., Ghazinejad, A., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2015). Who tweets about science? Proceeding of ISSI 2015. ISSI.

  • Vainio, J., & Holmberg, K. (2017). Highly tweeted science articles: Who tweets them? An analysis of Twitter user profile descriptions. Scientometrics, 112(1), 345–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, X., & Lv, N. (2012). Research on hot spot analysis method based on keyword co-occurrence frequency. Information Studies: Theory & Application, 35(08), 115–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, S., Zheng, M., Yu, Y., & Wolfram, D. (2021). Are Altmetric.com scores effective for research impact evaluation in the social sciences and humanities. Journal of Informetrics, 15(1), 101120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, S. W., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2014). Connecting blog, Twitter, and Facebook use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Communication and Society, 27(4), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.27.4.33-48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, H., & Li, L. (2021). Research on influencing factors of policy documents Altmetrics indicators. Information Studies: Theory & Application, 44(07), 28–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, H., Xiao, T., Xu, S., & Wang, Y. (2019). Who posts scientific tweets? An investigation into the productivity, locations, and identities of scientific tweeters. Journal of Informetrics, 13(3), 841–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, H., Xu, S., & Xiao, T. (2018). Is there Lingua Franca in informal scientific communication? Evidence from language distribution of scientific tweets. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 605–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, H., Zhang, W., & Cao, X. (2021a). Distribution features of Facebook Altmetrics of scholarly papers. Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information, 40(10), 1079–1091.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, H., Zhang, W., Wang, Y., & Xiao, T. (2021b). Who shares scholarly output on Facebook? Proceeding of ISSI 2021 (pp. 1569–1570). ISSI.

  • Zahedi, Z., & Haustein, S. (2018). On the relationships between bibliographic characteristics of scientific documents and citation and Mendeley readership counts A large-scale analysis of Web of Science articles. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 191–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X., & Liu, W. (2020). Comparison and enlightenment of social media alternative metrics in English Sci-tech journals at home and abroad. Digital Library Forum, 10, 52–60.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was funded by Humanity and Social Science Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (22YJA870016) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (72274227). The authors would like to thank Altmetric.com for providing access to their data.

Funding

The research was funded by Humanity and Social Science Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (22YJA870016) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (72274227).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Management, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China

    Houqiang Yu, Shah Hussain & Haoyang Song

  2. School of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China

    Houqiang Yu & Yue Wang

Authors
  1. Houqiang Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yue Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shah Hussain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Haoyang Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Houqiang Yu or Haoyang Song.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, H., Wang, Y., Hussain, S. et al. Towards a better understanding of Facebook Altmetrics in LIS field: assessing the characteristics of involved paper, user and post. Scientometrics 128, 3147–3170 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04678-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04678-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation