Beyond citations: Scholars' visibility on the social Web

Abstract: Traditionally, scholarly impact and visibility have been measured by counting publications and citations in the scholarly literature. However, increasingly scholars are also visible on the Web, establishing presences in a growing variety of social ecosystems. But how wide and established is this presence, and how do measures of social Web impact relate to their more traditional counterparts? To answer this, we sampled 57 presenters from the 2010 Leiden STI Conference, gathering publication and citations counts as well as data from the presenters' Web "footprints." We found Web presence widespread and diverse: 84% of scholars had homepages, 70% were on LinkedIn, 23% had public Google Scholar profiles, and 16% were on Twitter. For sampled scholars' publications, social reference manager bookmarks were compared to Scopus and Web of Science citations; we found that Mendeley covers more than 80% of sampled articles, and that Mendeley bookmarks are significantly correlated (r=.45) to Scopus citation counts.

• The paper demonstrates a novel comparison of traditional citation metrics with digital altmetrics from social platforms, offering fresh insights into scholarly impact.
• The study employs data from 57 conference presenters, revealing high homepage (84%) and LinkedIn (70%) adoption alongside moderate correlations, such as r = 0.45 between Mendeley bookmarks and Scopus citations.
• The findings underscore the value of integrating altmetrics with conventional measures to provide a more comprehensive assessment of scholarly influence and guide future impact evaluations.

Scholarly Visibility: Traditional Metrics Versus the Social Web

In the evolving landscape of scholarly communication, the paper "Beyond Citations: Scholars' Visibility on the Social Web" critically examines the expansion of scholarly impact measurement—from traditional citation-based metrics to the inclusion of altmetrics derived from social web platforms. The investigation addresses how metrics from social media can both complement and diverge from conventional bibliometric approaches. This study presents empirical data collected from 57 presenters at the 2010 Leiden STI Conference, providing a paradigm for assessing such alternative metrics.

Methodology and Findings

The authors embarked on a meticulous examination of the scholars' digital footprints, encompassing institutional homepage presence, LinkedIn profiles, Google Scholar rankings, and Twitter activity. Data from altmetric sources such as Mendeley and CiteULike were compiled and analyzed, comparing these with conventional measures from Scopus and Web of Science (WoS).

Key findings from this data include:

• Presence on Social Platforms: A significant 84% of scholars maintained homepages, and 70% were on LinkedIn. Fewer presenters used Twitter (16%) and Google Scholar profiles (23%), reflecting varying adoption of altmetric platforms.
• Correlations and Coverage: The study identified substantial coverage by Mendeley, with over 80% of sampled publications bookmarked, exhibiting a moderate correlation (r = 0.45) with Scopus citation counts. In contrast, CiteULike interaction was less significant, covering only 28% of documents.
• Scholarly Impact: Although correlation between traditional and altmetric counts underscores shared domains of influence, significant variance suggests social metrics capture distinct aspects of scholarly visibility. The altmetric data, particularly from Mendeley, frequently track usage patterns that might indicate value not reflected through citation alone.

Implications and Future Directions

The implications of this study rest heavily on the nascent yet promising prospect of altmetrics in crafting a nuanced picture of scholarly impact. While traditional metrics excel in capturing author impact on other scholarly authors, altmetrics broadens the scope to include reader engagement and online discourse.

This research asserts the necessity of integrating these two approaches for more comprehensive scholarly evaluations. The moderate correlation between Mendeley bookmarks and Scopus citations suggests a synergy; however, the discrepancies call for deeper explication of why scholars engage these platforms and how such actions equate to scholarly acknowledgment.

Looking forward, research could explore the latent potential of other altmetric sources such as blogging platforms, Wikipedia, and Twitter, to further extend our understanding of scholarly impact. Such insights offer potential refinement for research assessment frameworks, potentially informing both academic discourse and institutional policy.

This study's contributions to the understanding of altmetrics underscore an evolving metric ecology that, if harnessed appropriately, could significantly enhance the breadth and depth of our insight into scholarly communication and influence.