Posts Tagged ‘CiteULike’
Haustein, Stefanie and Siebenlist, Tobias.
Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics. Article in Press, Corrected Proof.
It has been shown that bookmarks of journal articles can be analyzed to measure journal usage independently from publishers. Data can be extracted about how often journal articles are used on a global scale. Tags assigned by users can give a new perspective on journal content and visualize trends of journal perception from the readers’ point of view.
By bookmarking and tagging articles, academic prosumers generate new information about resources, i.e. usage statistics and content description of scientific journals.
Given the lack of global download statistics, the authors propose the application of social bookmarking data to journal evaluation.
For a set of 45 physics journals all 13,608 bookmarks from CiteULike, Connotea and BibSonomy to documents published between 2004 and 2008 were analyzed.
This article explores bookmarking data in STM and examines in how far it can be used to describe the perception of periodicals by the readership.
Four basic indicators are defined, which analyze different aspects of usage: Usage Ratio, Usage Diffusion, Article Usage Intensity and Journal Usage Intensity. Tags are analyzed to describe a reader-specific view on journal content.
Social bookmarking in academics is however still in its infancy. Inconsistent and incomplete entries made retrieval cumbersome and a matching to other bibliographic data necessary. Metadata quality is crucial for the services to successfully keep old and gain new customers. So it was surprising to discover, that the entries were of bad quality…
CiteULike also had the largest retrieval functionality and most complete metadata…
Mendeley looks like a suitable and applicable source for future usage-based journal evaluations.
To complete previous posts (see 13th and 15th of December), look at this nice presentation that Stefanie Haustein and Sabrina Reher have presented at Science and Technology Indicators Conference in Leiden last September.
They applied social bookmarking data to evaluate the usage of scientific journals.
If the Mendeley’s founder claimed in the Guardian last summer that it will overtake the size of Web of Science (40 millions of records) by the end of 2010, but it seems that there are a lot of duplicates into, said an estimation in last September…
How many unique papers are there in Mendeley?
.. is more adapted than its competitors if you work on Medicine and biology fields.
Sabrina Reher (see below previous post on Dec. 13) has gently sent me her recent dissertation.
It is in German but the figure below is enough demonstrative I think
Social bookmarking tools enable people to bookmark interesting resources on the web, tag them, and share the information with other users.
Scientists want to store, search, and share professional, scholarly literature. Today there are four established social bookmarking tools serving academic purposes:
- CiteULike (www.citeulike.org),
- Connotea (www.connotea.org),
- BibSonomy (www.bibsonomy.org),
- and 2collab (www.2collab.com).
In social bookmarking, users play the key role. The whole idea is to profit from content created by a large number of users.
The competition among BibSonomy, CiteULike, and Connotea raises the question of whether one service will be able to gain an edge over its competitors.
Results of the test:
The road testing was to create 10 references from various publishers to see how often bookmark was successfullty created without subsequent manual correction
- 480,000 visits per month
- +++: Citegeist (most popular articles)
- Road testing: 8/10
- 690,000 visits:per month
- +++: My Library toolbox
- +++: target the medical community
- Road testing: 3/10
- 620,000 visits per month
- Road testing: 4/10
- 44,000 visits per month
- Road testing: 1/10
Because of its poor abilities (except with ScienceDirect references) 2collab is renamed “2collapse” by authors of the article!
Sabrina Reher; Stefanie Haustein. Social Bookmarking in STM: PUTTING SERVICES TO THE ACID TEST. ONLINE, Vol.34, N°6, Nov-Dec 2010, pp. 34-42
David Crotty already said that there are too many redundant services on Science 2.0… Indeed, look at this page where an article can be collected in different online services:
from left to right: CiteULike, Complore, Connotea, Del.icio.us, Digg, Facebook, Reddit, Technorati, Twitter
A nice list of useful (obviously done by a Librarian!) sources to start a review on Science 2.0:
- WorldCat: List: Science 2.0 / Open Science: http://www.worldcat.org/profiles/PFAnderson/lists/651073
- FriendFeed: Science 2.0: http://friendfeed.com/rooms/science-2-0
- Delicious: Science 2.0: http://delicious.com/tag/science2.0
- CiteULike: Groups: Science 2.0 / Open Science: http://www.citeulike.org/group/9932/library
Source: Emerging Technologies Librarian: http://etechlib.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/science-20-getting-started/