图书情报领域文献的Altmetrics指标分析

Analysis of Altmetrics Indicators in the Field of Library and Information Science

[目的 /意义]通过分析某个学科领域中Altmetrics指标的特征,为该领域文献影响力评价提供更加科学合理的指标体系。[方法 /过程]定位于图书情报领域,选取Scopus、Altmetric.com进行文献被引频次及Altmetrics指标值的采集,对数据进行统计分析、聚类分析和内容分析。[结果 /结论]在众多Altmetrics指标中,Mendeley和Twitter更适合于对图书情报领域文献的影响力做出评价;Mendeley和Twitter中文献的使用群体、文献主题、内容和期刊分布都存在明显的差异性;Twitter适合对文献的社会影响力做出判断,Mendeley更适用于文献的学术影响力评价;不同工具的流行程度存在地域差异,利用Altmetrics指标时应考虑该指标对文献影响力的评价是否存在地域缺失。

[ Purpose/significance] By analyzing the feature of Altmetrics indicators, this paper builds a scientific evaluation system to judge the impact of papers in a certain field. [ Method/process] Taking the field of library and information science for example, it gathers citations and Altmetrics from Scopus and Altmetric. com, and makes a statistical analysis, cluster analysis and content analysis. [ Result/conclusion] The findings show that： Mendeley and Twitter are more suitable to evaluate the impact of literatures in the field of library and information science; there are significant differences between Mendeley and Twitter in the point of user demographic, paper topic, paper content and journal distribution; Twitter is suitable to measure societal impact and Mendeley is suitable for the scholarly impact; there are regional differences in the popularity of different tools, when using an Altmetrics indicator it is necessary to consider if it could reveal the paper impact comprehensively.