Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

How Much Research Output from India Gets Social Media Attention?


Affiliations
1 Department of Computer Science, South Asian University, New Delhi 110 021,, India
2 Department of Computer Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221 005, India
3 GESIS Leibniz Institute for Social Sciences, Cologne, Germany
 

Scholarly articles are now increasingly being mentioned and discussed in social media platforms, sometimes even as pre- or post-print version uploads. Measures of social media mentions and coverage are now emerging as an alternative indicator of impact of scholarly articles. This article aims to explore how much scholarly research output from India is covered in different social media platforms, and how similar or different it is from the world average. It also analyses the disciplinewise variations in coverage and altmetric attention for Indian research output, including a comparison with the world average. Results obtained show interesting patterns. Only 28.5% of the total research output from India is covered in social media platforms, which is about 18% less than the world average. ResearchGate and Mendeley are the most popular social media platforms in India for scholarly article coverage. In terms of discipline-wise variation, medical sciences and biological sciences have relatively higher coverage across different platforms compared to disciplines like information science and engineering.

Keywords

Disciplinary Variation, Research Output, Scholarly Articles, Social Media.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • http://www.researchgate.net (accessed on 14 May 2019).

  • http://www.twitter.com (accessed on 14 May 2019).

  • http://www.facebook.com (accessed on 14 May 2019).

  • http://www.academia.edu (accessed on 14 May 2019).

  • http://www.mendeley.com (accessed on 14 May 2019).

  • Priem, J., Altmetrics. Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact, MIT Press, 2014, pp. 263–288.

  • Priem, J. and Hemminger, B. H., Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social web. First Monday, 2010, 15(7); http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2874/257 (accessed on June 2018).

  • Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M. and Larivière, V., Tweeting biomedicine: an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2014, 65(4), 656–669.

  • Thelwall, M. and Kousha, K., ResearchGate: disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2015, 66(5), 876–889.

  • Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, V. and Haustein, S., Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: a review of the literature. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2017, 68(9), 2037–2062.

  • Banshal, S. K., Basu, A., Singh, V. K. and Muhuri, P. K., Scientific vs public attention: a comparison of top cited papers in WoS and top papers by altmetric score. In Proceedings of AROSIM 2018 – Communications in Computer and Information Science, Springer, Singapore, 2018, vol. 856, pp. 81–95.

  • Shema, H., Bar‐Ilan, J. and Thelwall, M., Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2014, 65(5), 1018–1027.

  • Thelwall, M., Interpreting correlations between citation counts and other indicators. Scientometrics, 2016, 108(1), 337–347.

  • Peters, I., Kraker, P., Lex, E., Gumpenberger, C. and Gorraiz, J., Research data explored: an extended analysis of citations. Scientometrics, 2016, 107(2), 723–744.

  • Costas, R., Zahedi, Z. and Wouters, P., Do ‘altmetrics’ correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2015, 66(10), 2003–2019.

  • Thelwall, M., Early Mendeley readers correlate with later citation counts. Scientometrics, 2018, 115(3), 1231–1240.

  • Thelwall, M. and Kousha, K., ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: which finds more early citations? Scientometrics, 2017, 112(2), 1125–1131.

  • Thelwall, M. and Nevill, T., Could scientists use Altmetric.com scores to predict longer term citation counts? J. Informetr., 2018, 12(1), 237–248.

  • Sotudeh, H., Mazarei, Z. and Mirzabeigi, M., CiteULike bookmarks are correlated to citations at journal and author levels in library and information science. Scientometrics, 2015, 105(3), 2237–2248.

  • Chen, K., Tang, M., Wang, C. and Hsiang, J., Exploring alternative metrics of scholarly performance in the social sciences and humanities in Taiwan. Scientometrics, 2015, 102(1), 97–112.

  • Cho, J., A comparative study of the impact of Korean research articles in four academic fields using altmetrics. Perform. Meas. Metrics, 2017, 18(1), 38–51.

  • Holmberg, K. and Woo, H., An altmetric investigation of the online visibility of South Korea-based scientific journals. Scientometrics, 2018, 117(1), 603–613.

  • Bangani, S., The impact of electronic theses and dissertations: a study of the institutional repository of a university in South Africa. Scientometrics, 2018, 115(1), 131–151.

  • Shu, F., Lou, W. and Haustein, S., Can twitter increase the visibility of Chinese publications? Scientometrics, 2018, 116(1), 505–519.

  • Liu, Y., Lin, D., Xu, X., Shan, S. and Sheng, Q. Z., Multi-views on Nature Index of Chinese academic institutions. Scientometrics, 2018, 114(3), 823–837.

  • Wang, X., Fang, Z., Li, Q. and Guo, X., The poor altmetric performance of publications authored by researchers in Mainland China. Front. Res. Metrics Anal., 2016, 1, 8.

  • Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Does China need to rethink its metricsand citation-based research rewards policies? Scientometrics, 2017, 112(3), 1853–1857.

  • Lepori, B., Thelwall, M. and Hafeez, B., Which US and European higher education institutions are visible in ResearchGate and what affects their RG score? J. Informetr., 2018, 12(3), 806–818.

  • Banshal, S. K., Singh, V. K., Kaderye, G., Muhuri, P. K. and Sánchez, B. P., An altmetric analysis of scholarly articles from India. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 2018, 34(5), 3111–3118.

  • https://www.webofknowledge.com (accessed on 10 April 2019).

  • https://www.altmetric.com/explorer (accessed on 10 April 2019).

  • Rupika, U. A. and Singh, V. K., Measuring the university– industry–government collaboration in Indian research output. Curr. Sci,, 2016, 110(10), 1904.

  • https://www.altmetric.com/about-our-data/the-donut-and-score/


Abstract Views: 226

PDF Views: 82




  • How Much Research Output from India Gets Social Media Attention?

Abstract Views: 226  |  PDF Views: 82

Authors

Sumit Kumar Banshal
Department of Computer Science, South Asian University, New Delhi 110 021,, India
Vivek Kumar Singh
Department of Computer Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221 005, India
Pranab K. Muhuri
Department of Computer Science, South Asian University, New Delhi 110 021,, India
Philipp Mayr
GESIS Leibniz Institute for Social Sciences, Cologne, Germany

Abstract


Scholarly articles are now increasingly being mentioned and discussed in social media platforms, sometimes even as pre- or post-print version uploads. Measures of social media mentions and coverage are now emerging as an alternative indicator of impact of scholarly articles. This article aims to explore how much scholarly research output from India is covered in different social media platforms, and how similar or different it is from the world average. It also analyses the disciplinewise variations in coverage and altmetric attention for Indian research output, including a comparison with the world average. Results obtained show interesting patterns. Only 28.5% of the total research output from India is covered in social media platforms, which is about 18% less than the world average. ResearchGate and Mendeley are the most popular social media platforms in India for scholarly article coverage. In terms of discipline-wise variation, medical sciences and biological sciences have relatively higher coverage across different platforms compared to disciplines like information science and engineering.

Keywords


Disciplinary Variation, Research Output, Scholarly Articles, Social Media.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv117%2Fi5%2F753-760