How accurate are Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data? A comparative content analysis

Data accuracy is essential for reliable and valid altmetrics analysis. Although Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data are widely used for scholarly communication and scientific evaluation, few studies have tapped into their accuracy issue. Based on content analysis of random sample records over two p...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Scientometrics 2021-05, Vol.126 (5), p.4437-4463
Hauptverfasser: Yu, Houqiang, Murat, Biegzat, Li, Longfei, Xiao, Tingting
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 4463
container_issue 5
container_start_page 4437
container_title Scientometrics
container_volume 126
creator Yu, Houqiang
Murat, Biegzat
Li, Longfei
Xiao, Tingting
description Data accuracy is essential for reliable and valid altmetrics analysis. Although Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data are widely used for scholarly communication and scientific evaluation, few studies have tapped into their accuracy issue. Based on content analysis of random sample records over two phases, this study has investigated and compared the accuracy of Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data. Major conclusions are drawn as follows. (1) Three error types were identified from the altmetric data provider and six error types were identified from the altmetric data aggregator. Twitter and Facebook have shared most of the error types except for minor differences in the sub-categories. (2) The overall error rate is substantially high, being 17% and 32% for Twitter and Facebook respectively in April, 2019. However, except for publication date error and posting date error, the percentage of the other error types is relatively low (being around 3%). (3) The percentage of error types related to the dynamic nature of Twitter and Facebook is increasing over time, while percentage of error types concerning the bibliographic data is decreasing over time. (4) The error types are either “high seriousness low percentage” or “low seriousness high percentage”, therefore, they would probably not bring significant negative influence. (5) Underlying reasons of these error types are various. They could be attributable to the Twitter (or Facebook) user, Twitter (or Facebook) platform, altmetric database, as well as the third-party data provider. These results suggest that Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data in the Altmetric database are reliable on the whole, although there is still space for further improvement.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11192-021-03954-7
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2519026624</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2519026624</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-8957c7cf2c8af0081d7576470f510ece570472df08b6576494ad54f35e1965553</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWD_-gKeA5-hMstlkT1KKtULBS3sOaTYrW9vdmqSW_ntTV_DmaQbmfV6Gh5A7hAcEUI8RESvOgCMDUcmCqTMyQqk147rEczICFJpVKOCSXMW4hgwJ0COynPUHap3bB5s8tcHTxaFNyQdqu5pOrfOrvv-gdpO2PoXWRVrbZJ_omLp-u7OZar983rvku5QZuznGNt6Qi8Zuor_9nddkOX1eTGZs_vbyOhnPmROKJ6YrqZxyDXfaNgAaayVVWShoJIJ3XiooFK8b0KvydKgKW8uiEdJjVUopxTW5H3p3of_c-5jMut-H_EQ0XGIFvCx5kVN8SLnQxxh8Y3ah3dpwNAjmpM8M-kzWZ370GZUhMUAxh7t3H_6q_6G-AbXscYc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2519026624</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How accurate are Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data? A comparative content analysis</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Yu, Houqiang ; Murat, Biegzat ; Li, Longfei ; Xiao, Tingting</creator><creatorcontrib>Yu, Houqiang ; Murat, Biegzat ; Li, Longfei ; Xiao, Tingting</creatorcontrib><description>Data accuracy is essential for reliable and valid altmetrics analysis. Although Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data are widely used for scholarly communication and scientific evaluation, few studies have tapped into their accuracy issue. Based on content analysis of random sample records over two phases, this study has investigated and compared the accuracy of Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data. Major conclusions are drawn as follows. (1) Three error types were identified from the altmetric data provider and six error types were identified from the altmetric data aggregator. Twitter and Facebook have shared most of the error types except for minor differences in the sub-categories. (2) The overall error rate is substantially high, being 17% and 32% for Twitter and Facebook respectively in April, 2019. However, except for publication date error and posting date error, the percentage of the other error types is relatively low (being around 3%). (3) The percentage of error types related to the dynamic nature of Twitter and Facebook is increasing over time, while percentage of error types concerning the bibliographic data is decreasing over time. (4) The error types are either “high seriousness low percentage” or “low seriousness high percentage”, therefore, they would probably not bring significant negative influence. (5) Underlying reasons of these error types are various. They could be attributable to the Twitter (or Facebook) user, Twitter (or Facebook) platform, altmetric database, as well as the third-party data provider. These results suggest that Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data in the Altmetric database are reliable on the whole, although there is still space for further improvement.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0138-9130</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1588-2861</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03954-7</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Bibliometrics ; Computer Science ; Content analysis ; Data analysis ; Errors ; Information Storage and Retrieval ; Informetrics ; Library Science ; Scholarly communication ; Social networks</subject><ispartof>Scientometrics, 2021-05, Vol.126 (5), p.4437-4463</ispartof><rights>Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2021</rights><rights>Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-8957c7cf2c8af0081d7576470f510ece570472df08b6576494ad54f35e1965553</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-8957c7cf2c8af0081d7576470f510ece570472df08b6576494ad54f35e1965553</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9241-6630</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11192-021-03954-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-03954-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yu, Houqiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murat, Biegzat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Longfei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xiao, Tingting</creatorcontrib><title>How accurate are Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data? A comparative content analysis</title><title>Scientometrics</title><addtitle>Scientometrics</addtitle><description>Data accuracy is essential for reliable and valid altmetrics analysis. Although Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data are widely used for scholarly communication and scientific evaluation, few studies have tapped into their accuracy issue. Based on content analysis of random sample records over two phases, this study has investigated and compared the accuracy of Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data. Major conclusions are drawn as follows. (1) Three error types were identified from the altmetric data provider and six error types were identified from the altmetric data aggregator. Twitter and Facebook have shared most of the error types except for minor differences in the sub-categories. (2) The overall error rate is substantially high, being 17% and 32% for Twitter and Facebook respectively in April, 2019. However, except for publication date error and posting date error, the percentage of the other error types is relatively low (being around 3%). (3) The percentage of error types related to the dynamic nature of Twitter and Facebook is increasing over time, while percentage of error types concerning the bibliographic data is decreasing over time. (4) The error types are either “high seriousness low percentage” or “low seriousness high percentage”, therefore, they would probably not bring significant negative influence. (5) Underlying reasons of these error types are various. They could be attributable to the Twitter (or Facebook) user, Twitter (or Facebook) platform, altmetric database, as well as the third-party data provider. These results suggest that Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data in the Altmetric database are reliable on the whole, although there is still space for further improvement.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Bibliometrics</subject><subject>Computer Science</subject><subject>Content analysis</subject><subject>Data analysis</subject><subject>Errors</subject><subject>Information Storage and Retrieval</subject><subject>Informetrics</subject><subject>Library Science</subject><subject>Scholarly communication</subject><subject>Social networks</subject><issn>0138-9130</issn><issn>1588-2861</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWD_-gKeA5-hMstlkT1KKtULBS3sOaTYrW9vdmqSW_ntTV_DmaQbmfV6Gh5A7hAcEUI8RESvOgCMDUcmCqTMyQqk147rEczICFJpVKOCSXMW4hgwJ0COynPUHap3bB5s8tcHTxaFNyQdqu5pOrfOrvv-gdpO2PoXWRVrbZJ_omLp-u7OZar983rvku5QZuznGNt6Qi8Zuor_9nddkOX1eTGZs_vbyOhnPmROKJ6YrqZxyDXfaNgAaayVVWShoJIJ3XiooFK8b0KvydKgKW8uiEdJjVUopxTW5H3p3of_c-5jMut-H_EQ0XGIFvCx5kVN8SLnQxxh8Y3ah3dpwNAjmpM8M-kzWZ370GZUhMUAxh7t3H_6q_6G-AbXscYc</recordid><startdate>20210501</startdate><enddate>20210501</enddate><creator>Yu, Houqiang</creator><creator>Murat, Biegzat</creator><creator>Li, Longfei</creator><creator>Xiao, Tingting</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>E3H</scope><scope>F2A</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9241-6630</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210501</creationdate><title>How accurate are Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data? A comparative content analysis</title><author>Yu, Houqiang ; Murat, Biegzat ; Li, Longfei ; Xiao, Tingting</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-8957c7cf2c8af0081d7576470f510ece570472df08b6576494ad54f35e1965553</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Bibliometrics</topic><topic>Computer Science</topic><topic>Content analysis</topic><topic>Data analysis</topic><topic>Errors</topic><topic>Information Storage and Retrieval</topic><topic>Informetrics</topic><topic>Library Science</topic><topic>Scholarly communication</topic><topic>Social networks</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yu, Houqiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murat, Biegzat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Longfei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xiao, Tingting</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Library &amp; Information Sciences Abstracts (LISA)</collection><collection>Library &amp; Information Science Abstracts (LISA)</collection><jtitle>Scientometrics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yu, Houqiang</au><au>Murat, Biegzat</au><au>Li, Longfei</au><au>Xiao, Tingting</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How accurate are Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data? A comparative content analysis</atitle><jtitle>Scientometrics</jtitle><stitle>Scientometrics</stitle><date>2021-05-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>126</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>4437</spage><epage>4463</epage><pages>4437-4463</pages><issn>0138-9130</issn><eissn>1588-2861</eissn><abstract>Data accuracy is essential for reliable and valid altmetrics analysis. Although Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data are widely used for scholarly communication and scientific evaluation, few studies have tapped into their accuracy issue. Based on content analysis of random sample records over two phases, this study has investigated and compared the accuracy of Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data. Major conclusions are drawn as follows. (1) Three error types were identified from the altmetric data provider and six error types were identified from the altmetric data aggregator. Twitter and Facebook have shared most of the error types except for minor differences in the sub-categories. (2) The overall error rate is substantially high, being 17% and 32% for Twitter and Facebook respectively in April, 2019. However, except for publication date error and posting date error, the percentage of the other error types is relatively low (being around 3%). (3) The percentage of error types related to the dynamic nature of Twitter and Facebook is increasing over time, while percentage of error types concerning the bibliographic data is decreasing over time. (4) The error types are either “high seriousness low percentage” or “low seriousness high percentage”, therefore, they would probably not bring significant negative influence. (5) Underlying reasons of these error types are various. They could be attributable to the Twitter (or Facebook) user, Twitter (or Facebook) platform, altmetric database, as well as the third-party data provider. These results suggest that Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data in the Altmetric database are reliable on the whole, although there is still space for further improvement.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><doi>10.1007/s11192-021-03954-7</doi><tpages>27</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9241-6630</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0138-9130
ispartof Scientometrics, 2021-05, Vol.126 (5), p.4437-4463
issn 0138-9130
1588-2861
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2519026624
source SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Accuracy
Bibliometrics
Computer Science
Content analysis
Data analysis
Errors
Information Storage and Retrieval
Informetrics
Library Science
Scholarly communication
Social networks
title How accurate are Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data? A comparative content analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T04%3A07%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20accurate%20are%20Twitter%20and%20Facebook%20altmetrics%20data?%20A%20comparative%20content%20analysis&rft.jtitle=Scientometrics&rft.au=Yu,%20Houqiang&rft.date=2021-05-01&rft.volume=126&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=4437&rft.epage=4463&rft.pages=4437-4463&rft.issn=0138-9130&rft.eissn=1588-2861&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11192-021-03954-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2519026624%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2519026624&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true