ABSTRACT
Carbon footprint (CF) research has received increasing attention in recent years, as evidenced by a rise in publications and citations, reflecting a growing concern for the environmental impact of human activities. However, the alignment of this scientific literature with the three dimensions of sustainability performance provided by the TBL paradigm (people, planet, and profit) has received limited attention. This study addresses this research gap by undertaking a large-scale bibliometric analysis of 9032 Web of Science (WoS) publications from 1992 to 2020. At the macro (journals) and micro (papers) levels, a methodology approach to classify research publications according to TBL dimensions was designed. The results indicate that the output and impact of CF research are balanced with respect to the environmental (planet) and economic (prosperity/profit) dimensions, while the social impact is balanced with respect to the people+profit dimensions. Other than that, "Affordable and Clean Energy" (3761 publications) and "Climate Action" (3091 publications) are the most frequently represented (and interconnected) objectives. The results obtained contribute to a greater understanding of the contribution of CF research to the attainment of the SDGs.
Subject(s)
Bibliometrics , Carbon Footprint , Humans , PublicationsABSTRACT
Reporting guidelines are tools to help improve the transparency, completeness, and clarity of published articles in health research. Specifically, the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statements provide evidence-based guidance on what to include in randomised trial articles and protocols to guarantee the efficacy of interventions. These guidelines are subsequently described and discussed in journal articles and used to produce checklists. Determining the online impact (i.e., number and type of links received) of these articles can provide insights into the dissemination of reporting guidelines in broader environments (web-at-large) than simply that of the scientific publications that cite them. To address the technical limitations of link analysis, here the Debug-Validate-Access-Find (DVAF) method is designed and implemented to measure different facets of the guidelines' online impact. A total of 65 articles related to 38 reporting guidelines are taken as a baseline, providing 240,128 URL citations, which are then refined, analysed, and categorised using the DVAF method. A total of 15,582 links to journal articles related to the CONSORT and SPIRIT initiatives were identified. CONSORT 2010 and SPIRIT 2013 were the reporting guidelines that received most links (URL citations) from other online objects (5328 and 2190, respectively). Overall, the online impact obtained is scattered (URL citations are received by different article URL IDs, mainly from link-based DOIs), narrow (limited number of linking domain names, half of articles are linked from fewer than 29 domain names), concentrated (links come from just a few academic publishers, around 60% from publishers), non-reputed (84% of links come from dubious websites and fake domain names) and highly decayed (89% of linking domain names were not accessible at the time of the analysis). In light of these results, it is concluded that the online impact of these guidelines could be improved, and a set of recommendations are proposed to this end. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-022-04542-z.
ABSTRACT
This study attempts to analyze patents as cited/mentioned documents to better understand the interest, dissemination and engagement of these documents in social environments, laying the foundations for social media studies of patents (social Patentometrics).Particularly, this study aims to determine how patents are disseminated on Twitter by analyzing three elements: tweets linking to patents, users linking to patents, and patents linked from Twitter. To do this, all the tweets containing at least one link to a full-text patent available on Google Patents were collected and analyzed, yielding a total of 126,815 tweets (and 129,001 links) to 86,417 patents. The results evidence an increase of the number of linking tweets over the years, presumably due to the creation of a standardized patent URL ID and the integration of Google Patents and Google Scholar, which took place in 2015. The engagement achieved by these tweets is limited (80.2% of tweets did not attract likes) but increasing notably since 2018. Two super-publisher twitter bot accounts (dailypatent and uspatentbot) are responsible of 53.3% of all the linking tweets, while most accounts are sporadic users linking to patent as part of a conversation. The patents most tweeted are, by far, from United States (87.5% of all links to Google Patents), mainly due to the effect of the two super-publishers. The impact of patents in terms of the number of tweets linking to them is unrelated to their year of publication, status or number of patent citations received, while controversial and media topics might be more determinant factors. However, further research is needed to better understand the topics discussed around patents on Twitter, the users involved, and the metrics attained. Given the increasing number of linking users and linked patents, this study finds Twitter as a relevant source to measure patent-level metrics, shedding light on the impact and interest of patents by the broad public.
ABSTRACT
New sources of citation data have recently become available, such as Microsoft Academic, Dimensions, and the OpenCitations Index of CrossRef open DOI-to-DOI citations (COCI). Although these have been compared to the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS), Scopus, or Google Scholar, there is no systematic evidence of their differences across subject categories. In response, this paper investigates 3,073,351 citations found by these six data sources to 2,515 English-language highly-cited documents published in 2006 from 252 subject categories, expanding and updating the largest previous study. Google Scholar found 88% of all citations, many of which were not found by the other sources, and nearly all citations found by the remaining sources (89-94%). A similar pattern held within most subject categories. Microsoft Academic is the second largest overall (60% of all citations), including 82% of Scopus citations and 86% of WoS citations. In most categories, Microsoft Academic found more citations than Scopus and WoS (182 and 223 subject categories, respectively), but had coverage gaps in some areas, such as Physics and some Humanities categories. After Scopus, Dimensions is fourth largest (54% of all citations), including 84% of Scopus citations and 88% of WoS citations. It found more citations than Scopus in 36 categories, more than WoS in 185, and displays some coverage gaps, especially in the Humanities. Following WoS, COCI is the smallest, with 28% of all citations. Google Scholar is still the most comprehensive source. In many subject categories Microsoft Academic and Dimensions are good alternatives to Scopus and WoS in terms of coverage.
ABSTRACT
This study aims to promote reflection and bring attention to the potential adverse effects of academic social networks on science. These academic social networks, where authors can display their publications, have become new scientific communication channels, accelerating the dissemination of research results, facilitating data sharing, and strongly promoting scientific collaboration, all at no cost to the user.One of the features that make them extremely attractive to researchers is the possibility to browse through a wide variety of bibliometric indicators. Going beyond publication and citation counts, they also measure usage, participation in the platform, social connectivity, and scientific, academic and professional impact. Using these indicators they effectively create a digital image of researchers and their reputations.However, although academic social platforms are useful applications that can help improve scientific communication, they also hide a less positive side: they are highly addictive tools that might be abused. By gamifying scientific impact using techniques originally developed for videogames, these platforms may get users hooked on them, like addicted academics, transforming what should only be a means into an end in itself.
OBJETIVO: Pretende este trabajo provocar la reflexión y alertar de los posibles peligros para la ciencia que encierran las nuevas redes sociales académicas que tanto éxito están teniendo en nuestros días. Las redes sociales académicas donde los autores pueden mostrar sus publicaciones se han convertido en nuevos canales de comunicación científica, pues agilizan la diseminación de los resultados de investigación, facilitan la compartición de datos y fomentan la colaboración científica de forma extensa sin coste alguno. Una de las novedades principales de estas plataformas, que es lo que las hace enormemente atractivas para los investigadores, consiste en la disponibilidad de una amplia batería de indicadores bibliométricos que van más allá del conteo de publicaciones y citas pues permiten medir el uso, la participación, la conectividad social y el impacto científico, académico y profesional. Sobre estos indicadores se está construyendo la propia imagen y reputación digital de los científicos. Pues bien, todos estos beneficios de las redes sociales académicas en la mejora de la comunicación científica esconden un lado no tan positivo para la ciencia. Se trata de herramientas muy peligrosas, que pueden convertirse en auténticas adicciones. Mediante la gamificación del impacto científico a través de persuasivas técnicas procedentes de los videojuegos, estas plataformas pueden hacer que los usuarios queden enganchados, como académicos adictos, convirtiendo lo que es un medio en un fin en sí mismo.
ABSTRACT
Pretende este trabajo provocar la reflexión y alertar de los posibles peligros para la ciencia que encierran las nuevas redes sociales académicas que tanto éxito están teniendo en nuestros días. Las redes sociales académicas donde los autores pueden mostrar sus publicaciones se han convertido en nuevos canales de comunicación científica, pues agilizan la diseminación de los resultados de investigación, facilitan la compartición de datos y fomentan la colaboración científica de forma extensa sin coste alguno. Una de las novedades principales de estas plataformas, que es lo que las hace enormemente atractivas para los investigadores, consiste en la disponibilidad de una amplia batería de indicadores bibliométricos que van más allá del conteo de publicaciones y citas pues permiten medir el uso, la participación, la conectividad social y el impacto científico, académico y profesional. Sobre estos indicadores se está construyendo la propia imagen y reputación digital de los científicos. Pues bien, todos estos beneficios de las redes sociales académicas en la mejora de la comunicación científica esconden un lado no tan positivo para la ciencia. Se trata de herramientas muy peligrosas, que pueden convertirse en auténticas adicciones. Mediante la gamificación del impacto científico a través de persuasivas técnicas procedentes de los videojuegos, estas plataformas pueden hacer que los usuarios queden enganchados, como académicos adictos, convirtiendo lo que es un medio en un fin en sí mismo (AU)
This study aims to promote reflection and bring attention to the potential adverse effects of academic social networks on science. These academic social networks, where authors can display their publications, have become new scientific communication channels, accelerating the dissemination of research results, facilitating data sharing, and strongly promoting scientific collaboration, all at no cost to the user. One of the features that make them extremely attractive to researchers is the possibility to browse through a wide variety of bibliometric indicators. Going beyond publication and citation counts, they also measure usage, participation in the platform, social connectivity, and scientific, academic and professional impact. Using these indicators they effectively create a digital image of researchers and their reputations. However, although academic social platforms are useful applications that can help improve scientific communication, they also hide a less positive side: they are highly addictive tools that might be abused. By gamifying scientific impact using techniques originally developed for videogames, these platforms may get users hooked on them, like addicted academics, transforming what should only be a means into an end in itself (AU)
