Altmetrics are web-based quantitative impact or attention indicators for academic articles that have been proposed to supplement citation counts. This article reports the first assessment of the extent to which mature altmetrics from Altmetric.com and Mendeley associate with journal article quality. It exploits expert norm-referenced peer review scores from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 for 67,030+ journal articles in all fields 2014-17/18, split into 34 Units of Assessment (UoAs). The results show that altmetrics are better indicators of research quality than previously thought, although not as good as raw and field normalised Scopus citation counts. Surprisingly, field normalising citation counts can reduce their strength as a quality indicator for articles in a single field. For most UoAs, Mendeley reader counts are the best, tweet counts are also a relatively strong indicator in many fields, and Facebook, blogs and news citations are moderately strong indicators in some UoAs, at least in the UK. In general, altmetrics are the strongest indicators of research quality in the health and physical sciences and weakest in the arts and humanities. The Altmetric Attention Score, although hybrid, is almost as good as Mendeley reader counts as a quality indicator and reflects more non-scholarly impacts.
翻译:平方是基于网络的量化影响或关注指标,这是为补充引证计算而提议的学术文章的在线定量影响或关注指标。本篇文章报告了对Altdrect.com和Mendeley的成熟等量与期刊文章质量之间关联程度的第一次评估。它利用了2021年英国研究卓越框架的专家规范参考同行审评评分,涉及2014-17/18年所有领域67,030+期刊文章,分为34个评估单位。结果显示,平方是比以往认为的更好的研究质量指标,尽管不如原始和实地的Scopus引用正常计数好。令人惊讶的是,实地正常引用计数可以降低其作为单一领域文章质量指标的强度。对于大多数UoAs, Mendeley读者计数是最好的,在许多领域,推文也是相对有力的指标,而Facebook、博客和新闻引用是某些尤然强的指标,至少在联合王国。一般而言,平方是健康和物理科学研究质量的最强指标,在艺术和人类质量方面几乎是最低指标。正数。