Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the evolution of Gold open access (OA) rates in different countries and disciplines, as well as explore the influencing factors. Design/methodology/approach In this study, employing the OA filter option of Web of Science (WoS), the authors perform a large-scale evaluation of the OA state of countries and disciplines from 1990 to 2016. Particularly, the authors consider not only the absolute number of Gold OA literature but also the ratio of them among all literature. Findings Currently, one-quarter of the WoS articles is Gold OA articles. Brazil is the most active country in OA publishing, while Russia, India and China have the lowest OA ratios. The OA percentage of Brazil has been decreasing dramatically in recent years, while the OA percentages of China, UK and the Netherlands have been increasing. There also exist huge differences of OA percentages across different subject categories. The percentages of OA articles in biology, life, and health-related areas are high, while those in physics and chemistry-related subject categories are very low. Originality/value With the availability of large-scale data from WoS, this study conducts a comprehensive evaluation of the Gold OA state of major countries for the first time. The variation of OA percentages is considered in light of the research profiles. OA policies in different countries and funding organizations also have an influence on the OA development.

In order to better understand the effect of social media in the dissemination of scholarly articles, employing the daily updated referral data of 110 PeerJ articles collected over a period of 345 days, we analyze the relationship between social media attention and article visitors directed by social media. Our results show that social media presence of PeerJ articles is high. About 68.18% of the papers receive at least one tweet from Twitter accounts other than @PeerJ, the official account of the journal. Social media attention increases the dissemination of scholarly articles. Altmetrics could not only act as the complement of traditional citation measures but also play an important role in increasing the article downloads and promoting the impacts of scholarly articles. There also exists a significant correlation among the online attention from different social media platforms. Articles with more Facebook shares tend to get more tweets. The temporal trends show that social attention comes immediately following publication but does not last long, so do the social media directed article views.

No abstract

Social media has become an increasingly important channel of scholarly communication, especially for promoting the latest research outputs, so its role in facilitating access to academic texts is worth exploring. Based on 324 posts containing scholarly articles shared by journal Cell on Twitter and Facebook, this study compared the user engagement performance of articles posted on both platforms and examined the effect of such social media promotion and user engagement on article visiting. The user engagement performance of the articles was measured by retweets, shares, reactions, and likes, while click data tracked through bitly.com were used to indicate article visits. Statistical analysis, correlation analysis, and regression analysis were applied to explore and understand these data. For Cell, Facebook posts have a more significant influence than similar tweets in terms of volume. The user engagement on Facebook is 2.5~4 times as much as on Twitter. Moreover, the click metric of short links shows that Cell’s posts on Facebook directed twice as many visitors to the papers as posts on Twitter. However, the efficiency of the two platforms is approximate when the difference in the volume of followers is eliminated. The correlation and regression analysis suggested that user engagement positively affects the visiting of Cell’s papers. Both reactions and shares would affect the clicks of the short links to paper text. The results shed light on the implications of sharing scholarly articles on social media platforms for the promotion of article visits.

This study investigates scholars' citation behaviors from a fine-grained perspective. Specifically, each scholarly citation is considered multidimensional rather than logically unidimensional (i.e., present or absent). Thirty million articles from PubMed were accessed for use in empirical research, in which a total of 15 interpretable features of scholarly citations were constructed and grouped into three main categories. Each category corresponds to one aspect of the reasons and motivations behind scholars' citation decision-making during academic writing. Using about 500,000 pairs of actual and randomly generated scholarly citations, a series of Random Forest-based classification experiments were conducted to quantitatively evaluate the correlation between each constructed citation feature and citation decisions made by scholars. Our experimental results indicate that citation proximity is the category most relevant to scholars' citation decision-making, followed by citation authority and citation inertia. However, big-name scholars whose h-indexes rank among the top 1% exhibit a unique pattern of citation behaviors-their citation decision-making correlates most closely with citation inertia, with the correlation nearly three times as strong as that of their ordinary counterparts. Hopefully, the empirical findings presented in this paper can bring us closer to characterizing and understanding the complex process of generating scholarly citations in academia.

In this study, we analyze the dual network of scholars' co‐authorship and online friendship. We conduct comparisons of these two networks in the field of scientometrics. Using co‐authorship data of publications and following data on ResearchGate, we extract the co‐authorship network and online friendship network, respectively. The results reveal several topological differences between these two networks. The edges of co‐authorship network are more decentralized than the online friendship network. Moreover, the co‐authorship network has a clear community structure, while the online friendship network has clustered communities. However, the two networks have a strong internal relationship. Specifically, the co‐authorship intensity has an impact on the formation of social relations. The academic social network promotes the integration of and scholarly communication among academic communities.