Are there any disciplinary differences among altmetrics? An analysis on research gate indicators

Purpose The aim of this study was to elucidate disciplinary variations in Research Gate (RG) literature-level altmetric indicators across different levels and discern their implications. Additionally, the research aimed to analyze the congruities and disparities between the attention garnered by articles from the general public and the attention received within scholarly circles. Design/methodology/approach In this study, a stratified sampling method was adopted to collect the altmetric data associated with papers from different disciplines and varying levels of public interest on Altmetric.com, including RG Reads, RG Recommendations, RG Citations, RG Research Interest Score and additional indicator data. The distribution characteristics and meanings of RG indicators were analyzed within disciplinary dimensions, utilizing statistical analysis, comparative analysis, correlation analysis and other methods. Findings The coverage, geometric mean and frequency distribution of RG indicators vary across disciplines. RG Reads consistently show high coverage (>70%) and are suitable in Psychology, Cognitive Sciences, Environmental Sciences and business-related fields, while RG Recommendations have low coverage and are unsuitable as an altmetric indicator. RG Citations are most applicable in Business-related disciplines, whereas the RG Research Interest Score is more relevant to both Business-related disciplines and Natural Sciences disciplines. In addition, RG Reads, RG Citations and RG Research Interest Score strongly correlate with Mendeley Reads and Dimensions Citations, reflecting academic impact. In Earth Sciences and Medicine and Health Sciences, RG Reads and RG Recommendations also correlate with Twitter and Facebook Mentions, indicating social influence. Originality/value This study reveals the disciplinary differences between different levels of RG literature-level altmetric indicators and their implications, a question that has not yet been answered and is critical for metrics application.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Aslib Journal of Information Management
Published
2025-04-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1108/ajim-10-2024-0853
Citations
1
Primary Topic
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.40
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Are there any disciplinary differences among altmetrics? An analysis on research gate indicators

Ying Wang, Fei Shu, Rui Zhang
1 citations
Aslib Journal of Information Management
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
1.40
article

Are there any disciplinary differences among altmetrics? An analysis on research gate indicators

Ying Wang, Fei Shu, Rui Zhang
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to elucidate disciplinary variations in Research Gate (RG) literature-level altmetric indicators across different levels and discern their implications. Additionally, the research aimed to analyze the congruities and disparities between the attention garnered by articles from the general public and the attention received within scholarly circles. Design/methodology/approach In this study, a stratified sampling method was adopted to collect the altmetric data associated with papers from different disciplines and varying levels of public interest on Altmetric.com, including RG Reads, RG Recommendations, RG Citations, RG Research Interest Score and additional indicator data. The distribution characteristics and meanings of RG indicators were analyzed within disciplinary dimensions, utilizing statistical analysis, comparative analysis, correlation analysis and other methods. Findings The coverage, geometric mean and frequency distribution of RG indicators vary across disciplines. RG Reads consistently show high coverage (>70%) and are suitable in Psychology, Cognitive Sciences, Environmental Sciences and business-related fields, while RG Recommendations have low coverage and are unsuitable as an altmetric indicator. RG Citations are most applicable in Business-related disciplines, whereas the RG Research Interest Score is more relevant to both Business-related disciplines and Natural Sciences disciplines. In addition, RG Reads, RG Citations and RG Research Interest Score strongly correlate with Mendeley Reads and Dimensions Citations, reflecting academic impact. In Earth Sciences and Medicine and Health Sciences, RG Reads and RG Recommendations also correlate with Twitter and Facebook Mentions, indicating social influence. Originality/value This study reveals the disciplinary differences between different levels of RG literature-level altmetric indicators and their implications, a question that has not yet been answered and is critical for metrics application.

Aslib Journal of Information Management
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
1.40
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.