@article{aksnes2003macro, abstract = {This study investigates the role of self-citation in the scientific production of Norway (1981-1996). More than 45,000 publications have been analysed. Using a three-year citation window we find that 36% of all citations represent author self-citations. However, this percentage is decreasing when citations are traced for longer periods. We find the highest share of self-citation among the least cited papers. There is a strong positive correlation between the number of self-citations and the number of authors of the publications. Still, only a minor part of the overall increase in citation rates that can be found for multi-authored papers is due to self-citations. Also, the share of self-citation shows significant variations among different scientific disciplines. The results are relevant for the discussion concerning use of citation indicators in research assessments.}, author = {Aksnes, Dag W.}, doi = {10.1023/A:1021919228368}, interhash = {d929a33337bbbcc3b3bc1ebc2d1fe3d3}, intrahash = {b76d63d366bb3ca267df1c4f92979b69}, issn = {0138-9130}, journal = {Scientometrics}, language = {English}, number = 2, pages = {235-246}, publisher = {Kluwer Academic Publishers}, title = {A macro study of self-citation}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A%3A1021919228368}, volume = 56, year = 2003 } @article{thelwall2013altmetrics, abstract = {

Altmetric measurements derived from the social web are increasingly advocated and used as early indicators of article impact and usefulness. Nevertheless, there is a lack of systematic scientific evidence that altmetrics are valid proxies of either impact or utility although a few case studies have reported medium correlations between specific altmetrics and citation rates for individual journals or fields. To fill this gap, this study compares 11 altmetrics with Web of Science citations for 76 to 208,739 PubMed articles with at least one altmetric mention in each case and up to 1,891 journals per metric. It also introduces a simple sign test to overcome biases caused by different citation and usage windows. Statistically significant associations were found between higher metric scores and higher citations for articles with positive altmetric scores in all cases with sufficient evidence (Twitter, Facebook wall posts, research highlights, blogs, mainstream media and forums) except perhaps for Google+ posts. Evidence was insufficient for LinkedIn, Pinterest, question and answer sites, and Reddit, and no conclusions should be drawn about articles with zero altmetric scores or the strength of any correlation between altmetrics and citations. Nevertheless, comparisons between citations and metric values for articles published at different times, even within the same year, can remove or reverse this association and so publishers and scientometricians should consider the effect of time when using altmetrics to rank articles. Finally, the coverage of all the altmetrics except for Twitter seems to be low and so it is not clear if they are prevalent enough to be useful in practice.

}, author = {Thelwall, Mike and Haustein, Stefanie and Larivière, Vincent and Sugimoto, Cassidy R.}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0064841}, interhash = {e8b290200bf83fcd1720e59253febd92}, intrahash = {cefe270b61c929ee0fff81d36cedf87a}, journal = {PLoS ONE}, month = {05}, number = 5, pages = {e64841}, publisher = {Public Library of Science}, title = {Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0064841}, volume = 8, year = 2013 } @misc{priem2012altmetrics, abstract = {In growing numbers, scholars are integrating social media tools like blogs, Twitter, and Mendeley into their professional communications. The online, public nature of these tools exposes and reifies scholarly processes once hidden and ephemeral. Metrics based on this activities could inform broader, faster measures of impact, complementing traditional citation metrics. This study explores the properties of these social media-based metrics or "altmetrics", sampling 24,331 articles published by the Public Library of Science. We find that that different indicators vary greatly in activity. Around 5% of sampled articles are cited in Wikipedia, while close to 80% have been included in at least one Mendeley library. There is, however, an encouraging diversity; a quarter of articles have nonzero data from five or more different sources. Correlation and factor analysis suggest citation and altmetrics indicators track related but distinct impacts, with neither able to describe the complete picture of scholarly use alone. There are moderate correlations between Mendeley and Web of Science citation, but many altmetric indicators seem to measure impact mostly orthogonal to citation. Articles cluster in ways that suggest five different impact "flavors", capturing impacts of different types on different audiences; for instance, some articles may be heavily read and saved by scholars but seldom cited. Together, these findings encourage more research into altmetrics as complements to traditional citation measures.}, author = {Priem, Jason and Piwowar, Heather A. and Hemminger, Bradley M.}, interhash = {629744ad15197eedde33f8444c3e8e01}, intrahash = {e22613ac29fd25f21430739a4c3e001c}, note = {cite arxiv:1203.4745v1Comment: 5 tables, 13 figures}, title = {Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact}, url = {http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4745}, year = 2012 } @inproceedings{barilan2012beyond, abstract = {Traditionally, scholarly impact and visibility have been measured by counting publications and citations in the scholarly literature. However, increasingly scholars are also visible on the Web, establishing presences in a growing variety of social ecosystems. But how wide and established is this presence, and how do measures of social Web impact relate to their more traditional counterparts? To answer this, we sampled 57 presenters from the 2010 Leiden STI Conference, gathering publication and citations counts as well as data from the presenters' Web "footprints." We found Web presence widespread and diverse: 84% of scholars had homepages, 70% were on LinkedIn, 23% had public Google Scholar profiles, and 16% were on Twitter. For sampled scholars' publications, social reference manager bookmarks were compared to Scopus and Web of Science citations; we found that Mendeley covers more than 80% of sampled articles, and that Mendeley bookmarks are significantly correlated (r=.45) to Scopus citation counts.}, author = {Bar-Ilan, Judit and Haustein, Stefanie and Peters, Isabella and Priem, Jason and Shema, Hadas and Terliesner, Jens}, booktitle = {Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Montréal: Science-Metrix and OST}, editor = {Archambault, Éric and Gingras, Yves and Larivière, Vincent}, interhash = {5c386f2bfcd8d2052d455c75efb1c727}, intrahash = {42585cbc0a99d9e137f2a3d6cb0239e5}, pages = {98-109}, title = {Beyond citations: Scholars' visibility on the social Web}, url = {http://2012.sticonference.org/Proceedings/vol1/Bar-Ilan_Beyond_98.pdf}, volume = 1, year = 2012 } @article{haustein2011applying, abstract = {Web 2.0 technologies are finding their way into academics: specialized social bookmarking services allow researchers to store and share scientific literature online. 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. }, author = {Haustein, Stefanie and Siebenlist, Tobias}, doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.04.002}, interhash = {13fe59aae3d6ef95b529ffe00ede4126}, intrahash = {c3e49ee7b0ed81ecd126d3ef76d5f407}, issn = {1751-1577}, journal = {Journal of Informetrics }, number = 3, pages = {446 - 457}, title = {Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage }, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157711000393}, volume = 5, year = 2011 } @article{barilan2012beyond, abstract = {Traditionally, scholarly impact and visibility have been measured by counting publications and citations in the scholarly literature. However, increasingly scholars are also visible on the Web, establishing presences in a growing variety of social ecosystems. But how wide and established is this presence, and how do measures of social Web impact relate to their more traditional counterparts? To answer this, we sampled 57 presenters from the 2010 Leiden STI Conference, gathering publication and citations counts as well as data from the presenters' Web "footprints." We found Web presence widespread and diverse: 84% of scholars had homepages, 70% were on LinkedIn, 23% had public Google Scholar profiles, and 16% were on Twitter. For sampled scholars' publications, social reference manager bookmarks were compared to Scopus and Web of Science citations; we found that Mendeley covers more than 80% of sampled articles, and that Mendeley bookmarks are significantly correlated (r=.45) to Scopus citation counts.}, author = {Bar-Ilan, Judit and Haustein, Stefanie and Peters, Isabella and Priem, Jason and Shema, Hadas and Terliesner, Jens}, interhash = {5c386f2bfcd8d2052d455c75efb1c727}, intrahash = {81198ca94374ccd7b0a86b2b53d2ee50}, title = {Beyond citations: Scholars' visibility on the social Web}, url = {http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/journals/corr/corr1205.html#abs-1205-5611}, year = 2012 }
https://puma.uni-kassel.de/bib/user/stephandoerfel/citations
puma.uni-kassel.de
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-47
10813
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:ZGF5U32IVKHYZNSDRINBXIHFSME6W7YN
<urn:uuid:2030394e-79d6-494b-bfa8-57f71319f44f>
2019-11-21T17:27:07Z
141.51.82.241
application/x-bibtex-text-file
sha1:JJCHYM57QMYTWQ7TEMHTDASJ5FFGW3QM
<urn:uuid:3ff6e429-faf9-47ae-a699-22a3824f56b0>
https://puma.uni-kassel.de/bib/user/stephandoerfel/citations
response
<urn:uuid:ef4a42c0-7bf0-4449-9b6f-eb09ec40c936>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-47
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-187.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/