Disciplinary Variations in Altmetric Coverage of Scholarly Articles

Banshal, Sumit Kumar; Singh, Vivek Kumar; Muhuri, Pranab K.; Mayr, Philipp

doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.04205

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many of these controversial, newsworthy research topics are found in the life sciences, an umbrella term encompassing many health- and medicine-related research fields. These fields are unique in their historically low levels of preprint use ( Puebla et al ., 2022 ), high levels of press release promotion ( Lemke et al ., 2021 ; Orduña Malea & Costas, 2023 ), and correspondingly large volumes of media coverage ( Banshal et al ., 2019 ; Ginosar et al ., 2022 ; Joubert et al ., 2022 ). With potential to directly influence health policy, medical practice, and public wellbeing, the risks associated with posting and promoting preprints are also arguably greater in health-related fields than in other research areas ( Bonnechère, 2020 ; Chung, 2020 ; Maslove, 2018 ), raising additional concern about the use of health-related preprints in journalism.…”

Section: Journalists’ Pre-pandemic Use Of Open Access Publications An...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Making science public: a review of journalists’ use of Open Access research

Fleerackers,

Chtena,

Pinfield

et al. 2024

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science journalists are uniquely positioned to increase the societal impact of open research outputs by contextualizing and communicating findings in ways that highlight their relevance and implications for non-specialist audiences. Yet, it is unclear to what degree journalists use open research outputs, such as open access publications or preprints, in their reporting; what factors motivate or constrain this use; and how the recent surge in openly available research seen during the COVID-19 pandemic has affected this. This article examines these questions through a review of relevant literature published from 2018 onwards—particularly literature relating to the COVID-19 pandemic—as well as seminal articles outside the search dates. We find that research that explicitly examines journalists’ engagement with open access publications or preprints is scarce, with existing literature mostly addressing the topic tangentially or as a secondary concern, rather than a primary focus. Still, the limited body of evidence points to several factors that may hamper journalists’ use of these outputs and thus warrant further exploration. These include an overreliance on traditional criteria for evaluating scientific quality; concerns about the trustworthiness of open research outputs; and challenges using and verifying the findings. We also find that, while the COVID-19 pandemic encouraged journalists to explore open research outputs such as preprints, the extent to which these explorations will become established journalistic practices remains unclear. Furthermore, we note that current research is overwhelmingly authored and focused on the Global North, and the United States specifically. We conclude with recommendations for future research that attend to issues of equity and diversity, and more explicitly examine the intersections of open access and science journalism.

show abstract

Section: Journalists’ Pre-pandemic Use Of Open Access Publications An...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Making science public: a review of journalists’ use of Open Access research

Fleerackers,

Chtena,

Pinfield

et al. 2024

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• Paper random effects: Individual papers have different degrees of newsworthiness (e.g., biomedical papers have much more online coverage than papers from other disciplines 92 ).…”

Section: Validation With Author Self-reported Gendermentioning

confidence: 99%

The Gender Gap in Scholarly Self-Promotion on Social Media

Peng

Teplitskiy

Horvát³

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-promotion in science is ubiquitous but not exercised to the same extent by everyone. It is unclear whether there are gender differences in the frequency of self-promotion or the benefits individuals get from it. Here, we examine gender differences in scholarly self-promotion using 7M Tweet mentions of 539K research papers published in 2018 by 1.3M authors. Our analysis shows that female authors are significantly less likely than male authors to promote their papers, even after controlling for a number of important factors including journal impact, affiliation prestige, author productivity and number of citations, authorship position, number of coauthors, and research topics. The magnitude of the gender gap is more strongly associated with papers' journal impact factor than authors' affiliation prestige, previous productivity, or academic discipline. In particular, male scholars are 60\% more likely than comparable female scholars to self-promote papers published in journals with very high impact factor, whereas the difference is only 28\% for papers in low impact journals. Although women self-promote less often overall, when they do, their papers receive slightly more mentions on Twitter. Our findings offer the first large-scale evidence for a gender gap in scholarly self-promotion online and show the circumstances under which the gap is most substantial, helping inform policy aimed at mitigating discrepancies in visibility and recognition.

show abstract

“…The distribution of impact metrics is skewed for both citations and altmetrics (Banshal et al. , 2022), and the disciplinary aspect plays a relevant role for both the citations and altmetric scores (Banshal et al. , 2019; Htoo and Na, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scholars studied the differences between citations and altmetrics for Finnish articles (Didegah et al, 2018). The distribution of impact metrics is skewed for both citations and altmetrics (Banshal et al, 2022), and the disciplinary aspect plays a relevant role for both the citations and altmetric scores (Banshal et al, 2019;Htoo and Na, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The funding effect on citation and social attention: the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a case study

Dorta-González

2023

OIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeAcademic citation and social attention measure different dimensions in the impact of research results. The authors quantify the contribution of funding to both indicators considering the differences attributable to the research field and access type.Design/methodology/approachCitation and social attention accumulated until the year 2021 of more than 367 thousand research articles published in the year 2018 are studied. The authors consider funding acknowledgments (FAs) in the research articles. The data source is Dimensions, and the units of study are research articles in the United Nation (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).FindingsMost cited goals by researchers do not coincide with those that arouse greater social attention. A small proportion of articles accumulates a large part of the citations and most of the social attention. Both citation and social attention grow with funding. Thus, funded research has a greater probability of being cited in academic articles and mentioned in social media. Funded research receives on average two to three times more citations and 2.5 to 4.5 times more social attention than unfunded research. Moreover, the open access (OA) modalities gold and hybrid have the greatest advantages in citation and social attention due to funding.Research limitations/implicationsSpecific topics were studied in a specific period. Studying other topics and/or different time periods might result in different findings.Practical implicationsWhen funding to publish in open or hybrid access journals is not available, it is advisable to self-archiving the pre-print or post-print version in a freely accessible repository.Social implicationsAlthough cautiously, it is also advisable to consider the social impact of the research to complement the scientific impact in the evaluation of the research.Originality/valueThe joint evaluation of the effect of both funding and OA on social attention.

show abstract

Disciplinary Variations in Altmetric Coverage of Scholarly Articles

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Making science public: a review of journalists’ use of Open Access research

Making science public: a review of journalists’ use of Open Access research

The Gender Gap in Scholarly Self-Promotion on Social Media

The funding effect on citation and social attention: the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About