Cargando…
How to normalize Twitter counts? A first attempt based on journals in the Twitter Index
One possible way of measuring the broad impact of research (societal impact) quantitatively is the use of alternative metrics (altmetrics). An important source of altmetrics is Twitter, which is a popular microblogging service. In bibliometrics, it is standard to normalize citations for cross-field...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Netherlands
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4865526/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27239079 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1893-6 |
_version_ | 1782431796300873728 |
---|---|
author | Bornmann, Lutz Haunschild, Robin |
author_facet | Bornmann, Lutz Haunschild, Robin |
author_sort | Bornmann, Lutz |
collection | PubMed |
description | One possible way of measuring the broad impact of research (societal impact) quantitatively is the use of alternative metrics (altmetrics). An important source of altmetrics is Twitter, which is a popular microblogging service. In bibliometrics, it is standard to normalize citations for cross-field comparisons. This study deals with the normalization of Twitter counts (TC). The problem with Twitter data is that many papers receive zero tweets or only one tweet. In order to restrict the impact analysis on only those journals producing a considerable Twitter impact, we defined the Twitter Index (TI) containing journals with at least 80 % of the papers with at least 1 tweet each. For all papers in each TI journal, we calculated normalized Twitter percentiles (TP) which range from 0 (no impact) to 100 (highest impact). Thus, the highest impact accounts for the paper with the most tweets compared to the other papers in the journal. TP are proposed to be used for cross-field comparisons. We studied the field-independency of TP in comparison with TC. The results point out that the TP can validly be used particularly in biomedical and health sciences, life and earth sciences, mathematics and computer science, as well as physical sciences and engineering. In a first application of TP, we calculated percentiles for countries. The results show that Denmark, Finland, and Norway are the countries with the most tweeted papers (measured by TP). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4865526 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Springer Netherlands |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-48655262016-05-25 How to normalize Twitter counts? A first attempt based on journals in the Twitter Index Bornmann, Lutz Haunschild, Robin Scientometrics Article One possible way of measuring the broad impact of research (societal impact) quantitatively is the use of alternative metrics (altmetrics). An important source of altmetrics is Twitter, which is a popular microblogging service. In bibliometrics, it is standard to normalize citations for cross-field comparisons. This study deals with the normalization of Twitter counts (TC). The problem with Twitter data is that many papers receive zero tweets or only one tweet. In order to restrict the impact analysis on only those journals producing a considerable Twitter impact, we defined the Twitter Index (TI) containing journals with at least 80 % of the papers with at least 1 tweet each. For all papers in each TI journal, we calculated normalized Twitter percentiles (TP) which range from 0 (no impact) to 100 (highest impact). Thus, the highest impact accounts for the paper with the most tweets compared to the other papers in the journal. TP are proposed to be used for cross-field comparisons. We studied the field-independency of TP in comparison with TC. The results point out that the TP can validly be used particularly in biomedical and health sciences, life and earth sciences, mathematics and computer science, as well as physical sciences and engineering. In a first application of TP, we calculated percentiles for countries. The results show that Denmark, Finland, and Norway are the countries with the most tweeted papers (measured by TP). Springer Netherlands 2016-02-27 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4865526/ /pubmed/27239079 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1893-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Article Bornmann, Lutz Haunschild, Robin How to normalize Twitter counts? A first attempt based on journals in the Twitter Index |
title | How to normalize Twitter counts? A first attempt based on journals in the Twitter Index |
title_full | How to normalize Twitter counts? A first attempt based on journals in the Twitter Index |
title_fullStr | How to normalize Twitter counts? A first attempt based on journals in the Twitter Index |
title_full_unstemmed | How to normalize Twitter counts? A first attempt based on journals in the Twitter Index |
title_short | How to normalize Twitter counts? A first attempt based on journals in the Twitter Index |
title_sort | how to normalize twitter counts? a first attempt based on journals in the twitter index |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4865526/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27239079 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1893-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bornmannlutz howtonormalizetwittercountsafirstattemptbasedonjournalsinthetwitterindex AT haunschildrobin howtonormalizetwittercountsafirstattemptbasedonjournalsinthetwitterindex |