The Evolutionary Characteristics of Sleeping Beauties from the Perspective of Altmetrics
Hou Jianhua1, Li Hao1, Zhang Yang1, Gao Jiping2
1.School of Information Management, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510006 2.Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China, Beijing 100038
Abstract Sleeping Beauties (SBs) refers to special phenomena of the diffusion of scientific knowledge based on citation trajectories. However, the rapid advancement of social media has altered the mode of scientific communication and knowledge diffusion. This study aims to reveal the dynamic evolution of Altmetrics-Based Sleeping Beauty (A-SB), which involves analyses of the altmetric indexes and citation index. Using A-SB and its identified indexes and standards, we connected the recognition results based on the citation trajectory. The analysis and summary of the characteristics of the identified A-SB revealed the SBs’ evolution under the comprehensive trajectory based on altmetrics from two dimensions of the dynamic distribution of altmetric indexes and the state transition during the A-SB evolution. By combining the comparative analysis of A-SB and Citation-Based Sleeping Beauty (C-SB), we constructed the indicator Ab under the comprehensive evolution trajectory to identify SBs, and found that A-SB can better reflect the evolution process of SBs on the social media platform. In addition, we identified the main influencing factors of the A-SB state transition in the evolution of “Sleeping-Awakening” and differences in the impact of each index, revealing the role and characteristics of Dogsleep on the dynamic evolution of A-SB.
Hou Jianhua,Li Hao,Zhang Yang, et al. The Evolutionary Characteristics of Sleeping Beauties from the Perspective of Altmetrics[J]. 情报学报, 2021, 40(9): 934-952.
1 van Raan A F J. Sleeping Beauties in science[J]. Scientometrics, 2004, 59(3): 467-472. 2 Li J, Ye F Y. The phenomenon of all-elements-sleeping-beauties in scientific literature[J]. Scientometrics, 2012, 92(3): 795-799. 3 Barber B. Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery[J]. Science, 1961, 134(3479): 596-602. 4 Stent G S. Prematurity and uniqueness in scientific discovery[J]. Scientific American, 1972, 227(6): 84-93. 5 Garfield E. Premature discovery or delayed recognition—why?[OL]. Current Contents, 1980(21): 5-10. (1980-05-26). http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v4p488y1979-80.pdf. 6 Braun T, Gl?nzel W, Schubert A. On Sleeping Beauties, Princes and other tales of Citation distributions …[J]. Research Evaluation, 2010, 19(3): 195-202. 7 Hu Z W, Wu Y S. Regularity in the time-dependent distribution of the percentage of never-cited papers: an empirical pilot study based on the six journals[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2014, 8(1): 136-146. 8 Redner S. Citation statistics from 110 years of physical review[J]. Physics Today, 2005, 58(6): 49-54. 9 Garfield E. Delayed recognition in scientific discovery: citation frequency analysis aids the search for case histories[OL]. Current Contents, 1989(23): 3-9. (1989-06-05). http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v12p154y1989.pdf. 10 Garfield E. More delayed recognition. Part 1. Examples from the genetics of color blindness, the entropy of short-term memory, phosphoinositides, and polymer rheology[OL]. Current Contents, 1989(38): 3-8. (1989-09-18). http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v12p264y1989.pdf. 11 Garfield E. More delayed recognition. Part 2. From inhibin to scanning electron microcopy[OL]. Current Contents, 1990(9): 3-9. (1990-02-26). http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v13p068y1990.pdf. 12 Gl?nzel W, Schlemmer B, Thijs B. Better late than never? On the chance to become highly cited only beyond the standard bibliometric time horizon[J]. Scientometrics, 2003, 58(3): 571-586. 13 Gl?nzel W, Garfield E. The myth of delayed recognition[J]. The Scientist, 2004, 18(11): 8-9. 14 Hou J H, Yang X C. Patent sleeping beauties: evolutionary trajectories and identification methods[J]. Scientometrics, 2019, 120(1): 187-215. 15 Wang J, Thijs B, Gl?nzel W. Interdisciplinarity and impact: distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(5): e0127298. 16 Du J, Wu Y S. A parameter-free index for identifying under-cited sleeping beauties in science[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 116(2): 959-971. 17 Sun J J, Min C, Li J. A vector for measuring obsolescence of scientific articles[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 107(2): 745-757. 18 Li J. Citation curves of “all-elements-sleeping-beauties”: “?ash in the pan” ?rst and then “delayed recognition”[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 100(2): 595-601. 19 Egghe L, Guns R, Rousseau R. Thoughts on uncitedness: Nobel laureates and Fields medalists as case studies[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2011, 62(8): 1637-1644. 20 Li J, Ye F Y. Distinguishing sleeping beauties in science[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 108(2): 821-828. 21 El Aichouchi A, Gorry P. Delayed recognition of Judah Folkman's hypothesis on tumor angiogenesis: when a Prince awakens a Sleeping Beauty by self-citation[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 116(1): 385-399. 22 Huang T C, Hsu C, Ciou Z J. Systematic methodology for excavating sleeping beauty publications and their princes from medical and biological engineering studies[J]. Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering, 2015, 35(6): 749-758. 23 Ohba N, Nakao K. Sleeping beauties in ophthalmology[J]. Scientometrics, 2012, 93(2): 253-264. 24 Du J, Wu Y S. A bibliometric framework for identifying “princes” who wake up the “sleeping beauty” in challenge-type scientific discoveries[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2017, 1(1): 50-68. 25 Burrell Q L. Are “Sleeping Beauties” to be expected?[J]. Scientometrics, 2005, 65(3): 381-389. 26 van Raan A F J. Dormitory of physical and engineering sciences: sleeping beauties may be sleeping innovations[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(10): e0139786. 27 van Raan A F J. Sleeping beauties cited in patents: is there also a dormitory of inventions?[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 110(3): 1123-1156. 28 van Raan A F J, Winnink J J. Do younger Sleeping Beauties prefer a technological Prince?[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 114(2): 701-717. 29 杜建, 武夷山. “睡美人”文献的重要特征、预测线索与政策启示[J]. 科学学研究, 2018, 36(11): 1938-1945. 30 梁立明, 林晓锦, 钟镇, 等. 迟滞承认: 科学中的睡美人现象——以一篇被迟滞承认的超弦理论论文为例[J]. 自然辩证法通讯, 2009, 31(1): 39-45, 111. 31 Li J, Shi D B, Zhao S X, et al. A study of the “heartbeat spectra” for “sleeping beauties”[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2014, 8(3): 493-502. 32 Bornmann L. What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013, 64(2): 217-233. 33 Bornmann L, Haunschild R, Adams J. Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF)[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2019, 13(1): 325-340. 34 Prime J, Taraborelli D, Groth P, et al. Altmetrics: a manifesto[EB/OL]. [2010-10-26]. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/. 35 Waltman L, Costas R. F1000 recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation: a comparison with citations Citation[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 65(3): 433-445. 36 Costas R, Zahedi Z, Wouters P. Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(10): 2003-2019. 37 Haustein S, Peters I, Sugimoto C R, et al. Tweeting biomedicine: an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 65(4): 656-669. 38 de Winter J C F. The relationship between tweets, citations, and article views for PLOS ONE articles[J]. Scientometrics, 2015, 102(2): 1773-1779. 39 Sud P, Thelwall M. Evaluating altmetrics[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 98(2): 1131-1143. 40 Eysenbach G. Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact[J]. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2011, 13(4): e123. 41 Thelwall M, Haustein S, Larivière V, et al. Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services[J]. PLoS One, 2013, 8(5): e64841. 42 Zahedi Z, Costas R, Wouters P. How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(2): 1491-1513. 43 Mohammadi E, Thelwall M, Haustein S, et al. Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(9): 1832-1846. 44 Ebrahimy S, Mehrad J, Setareh F, et al. Path analysis of the relationship between visibility and citation: the mediating roles of save, discussion, and recommendation metrics[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 109(3): 1497-1510. 45 Bornmann L, Haunschild R. Do altmetrics correlate with the quality of papers? A large-scale empirical study based on F1000Prime data[J]. PLoS One, 2018, 13(5): e0197133. 46 Bornmann L. Usefulness of altmetrics for measuring the broader impact of research: a case study using data from PLOS and F1000Prime[J]. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 2015, 67(3): 305-319. 47 Bornmann L. Alternative metrics in scientometrics: a meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics[J]. Scientometrics, 2015, 103(3): 1123-1144. 48 郭飞, 游滨, 薛婧媛. Altmetrics热点论文传播特性及影响力分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2016, 60(15): 86-93. 49 Warren V T, Patel B, Boyd C J. Analyzing the relationship between Altmetric score and literature citations in the Implantology literature[J]. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 2020, 22(1): 54-58. 50 Iorns E. Reproducibility: an important altmetric[EB/OL]. (2012-06-21) [2012-07-21]. http://altmetrics.org/altmetrics12/iorns/. 51 Fenner M. Altmetrics will be taken personally at PLOS[EB/OL]. (2012-06-21) [2012-07-21]. http://altmetrics.org/altmetrics12/fenner/. 52 Adie E. Taking the alternative mainstream[J]. El Professional De La Informacion, 2014, 23(4): 349-351. 53 Das A K, Mishra S. Genesis of altmetrics or article-level metrics for measuring efficacy of scholarly communications: current perspectives[J]. Journal of Scientometric Research, 2014, 3(2): 82-92. 54 Wardle D A. Do ‘Faculty of 1000’ (F1000) ratings of ecological publications serve as reasonable predictors of their future impact?[J]. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 2010, 3: 11-15. 55 Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L. The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: a comparative study using data from InCites and F1000[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2013, 7(2): 286-291. 56 Shema H, Bar-Ilan J, Thelwall M. Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 65(5): 1018-1027. 57 Zahedi Z, Costas R, Wouters P. Assessing the impact of publications saved by mendeley users: is there any different pattern among users?[C]// Proceedings of the IATUL Conferences, 2014: Paper 4. 58 Haustein S, Siebenlist T. Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(3): 446-457. 59 Shuai X, Pepe A, Bollen J. How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: article downloads, twitter mentions, and citations[J]. PLoS One, 2012, 7(11): e47523. 60 Zhang L W, Wang J. Why highly cited articles are not highly tweeted? A biology case[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 117(1): 495-509. 61 Chapa J, Haq Z, Cifu A S. Comparative analysis of the factors associated with citation and media coverage of clinical research[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 112(3): 1271-1283. 62 Martín-Martín A, Thelwall M, Orduna-Malea E, et al. Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitation' COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations[J]. Scientometrics, 2021, 126(1): 871-906. 63 赵蓉英, 王旭. 多维信息计量视角下学术期刊影响力评价研究——以国际LIS期刊为例[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2019, 30(7): 773-781. 64 王旭, 赵蓉英. 融合Altmetrics的话语引导力指标与被引频次关系研究——以中国英文学术期刊为例[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2021, 44(7): 37-43, 36. 65 Wang X G, Lv T, Hamerly D. How do altmetric sources evaluate scientific collaboration? An empirical investigation for Chinese collaboration publications[J]. Library Hi Tech, 2019, 38(3): 563-576. 66 赵蓉英, 王建品, 冯雪峰, 等. 基于Altmetrics的开放获取期刊论文影响力评价研究[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2019, 42(1): 81-86. 67 Wang M Y, Wang Z Y, Chen G S. Which can better predict the future success of articles? Bibliometric indices or alternative metrics[J]. Scientometrics, 2019, 119(3): 1575-1595. 68 王凯利, 黄晓, 吴江. 融合Altmetrics和引文分析的期刊影响力综合评价研究[J]. 情报科学, 2021, 39(2): 169-177. 69 Mullins C H, Boyd C J, Corey B L. Examining the correlation between altmetric score and citations in the general surgery literature[J]. Journal of Surgical Research, 2020, 248: 159-164. 70 赵蓉英, 王旭. 引入Altmetrics指标的学术期刊影响力评价研究——以国际图书情报学期刊为例[J]. 图书与情报, 2018(5): 1-10. 71 Hou J H, Yang X C. Social media-based sleeping beauties: defining, identifying and features[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2020, 14(2): 101012. 72 Sugimoto C R, Work S, Larivière V, et al. Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: a review of the literature[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2017, 68(9): 2037-2062. 73 Haustein S. Grand challenges in altmetrics: heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 108(1): 413-423. 74 Ravenscroft J, Liakata M, Clare A, et al. Measuring scientific impact beyond academia: an assessment of existing impact metrics and proposed improvements[J]. PLoS One, 2017, 12(3): e0173152. 75 Ye F Y, Bornmann L. “Smart girls” versus “sleeping beauties” in the sciences: the identification of instant and delayed recognition by using the citation angle[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2018, 69(3): 359-367. 76 王真, 马建华. 基于PLoS开放获取数据的单篇论文网络浏览量累积规律的数理统计及分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(12): 72-83.
