Date of this Version
Alhoori, H., and Furuta, R. (2014). F1000 Recommendations as a Potential New Data Source for Research Evaluation: A Comparison with Citations, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 433-445.
Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., and Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the social Web.in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, vol. 52900, pp. 98–109.
Bornmann, L. (2015). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: a meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics, 103:1123–1144.
Costas, Rodrigo, Zohreh Zahedi, and Paul Wouters(2014). Do altmetrics correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. ArXiv preprint arXiv: 1401.4321.
Costas, R., Zahedi, Z. and Wouters, P. (2014). Do altmetrics correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:1401.4321.
Dayari, Sareh (1394). Comparison of Citation and Altmetric of the Top Medical Journals. Master thesis, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman
Haustein, S. Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2013). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community, 12. Digital Libraries. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7300
Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461–471. Doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0580-x.
Mansourian, Yazdan, and Navidi, Fatemeh (1393) Introduction to Altometrics: Alternative metrics to Study the Impact of Research with Emphasis on Social Web. Journal of scientometrics. 1(2), 15-34.
Priem, J., Piwowar, H.A., & Hemminger, B.M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. Available at: arXiv: 1203.4745v1.
Rismanbaf, A, Osareh, F. (1386). Informetrics from Genesis to now. Faslnameh Ketab, 71(3). 50-70.
Salajegheh, M. and Mohammadian, S. (1394) Altmetrics: A new way in Scientometrics. Quarterly Journal of National studies on librarianship and information organization(101), 71-84.
Shrivastava, R., Mahajan, P. (2016). Relationship between citation counts and Mendeley readership metrics: A case of top 100 cited papers in Physics. New Library World. Vol. 117 Iss: 3/4, pp.229 – 238
Sotudeh, H. Mazarei, Z. and Mirzabeigi, M. (1394) Investigation of The relationship between Citation Indicators and CiteUlike's tags: A Case Study the articles in the area of Information Science and Librarianship Sciences in 2012-2004,Journal of Information Processing & Management, 936-939
Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., and Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 5, p. e64841.
Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (2015). Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, n/a-n/a. Retrieved from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/asi.23501
West, J. (2008). Eigenfactor: Ranking and mapping scientific knowledge. .The 6th SPARK Japan Seminar 2008, National Institute of Information. M. Richardson (Ed.), 1-15.
Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., Wouters, P. (2013). How well developed are Altmetrics? Cross disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications (RIP). In Proceedings of the 14th 24 International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, Vienna, Austria (pp.876-884). Wien: Facultas Verlags Buchhandels AG.
Zahedi, Z., Fenner, M., & Costas, R. (2014). How consistent are altmetrics providers? Study of 1000 PLOS ONE publications using the PLOS ALM, Mendeley and Altmetric.com APIS. Altmetrics14: Expanding Impacts and etrics, 5–6. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1041821.
The main objective of the present research is to examine the relationship between the number of citations and the level of altmetrics for testing the validity of these new metrics, at least in terms of being alignment with the test established index. The present research population consist of articles from the top chemistry writers that were profiled at the Scopus Citation Database in 2010. Sample research is the articles by 20 top author. The present research is applied in terms of purpose, and is descriptive and correlative in terms of data collection. Data extraction was performed using Webometric analyst software and citation data was collected from Scopus. SPSS software was used to analyze the data.
The research findings show that the articles in question have little presence on social networks. In terms of the amount of attendance and distribution Mendeley, CiteUlike, Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, Google Plus and News, had the largest number of articles and altmetrics respectively. Also, the results show that Mendeley and Twitter have the most relationship with citations. Also, articles have at least one higher citation average altmetric (25.14%) than those with no altmetric (7.58%). In terms of citations' relationship, the Spearman correlation test showed a strong correlation between the number of Mendeley readers, news, and citations. Also, there was a weak correlation between Twitter, CiteUlike, and citations. Finally, there was not a meaningful relationship between Facebook posts, blog posts, Google plus, and citations.