AbstractCounts of tweets and Mendeley user libraries have been proposed as altmetric alternatives to citation counts for the impact assessment of articles. Although both have been investigated to discover whether they correlate with article citations, it is not known whether users tend to tweet or save (in Mendeley) the same kinds of articles that they cite. In response, this article compares pairs of articles that are tweeted, saved to a Mendeley library, or cited by the same user, but possibly a different user for each source. The study analyzes 1,131,318 articles published in 2012, with minimum tweeted (10), saved to Mendeley (100), and cited (10) thresholds. The results show surprisingly minor overall overlaps between the three phenomena. The importance of journals for Twitter and the presence of many bots at different levels of activity suggest that this site has little value for impact altmetrics. The moderate differences between patterns of saving and citation suggest that Mendeley can be used for some types of impact assessments, but sensitivity is needed for underlying differences.
CitationDidegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2018). Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69 (8), pp 959-973.
JournalJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
DescriptionThis is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Wiley-Blackwell in Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology on 14/05/2018, available online: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24028 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Archived with thanks to Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology