Limits...
I Like, I Cite? Do Facebook Likes Predict the Impact of Scientific Work?

Ringelhan S, Wollersheim J, Welpe IM - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Although based on our full sample of Study 1 (N = 170), Facebook likes do not predict traditional impact indicators, for manuscripts with one or more Facebook likes (n = 95), our results indicate that the more Facebook likes a manuscript receives, the more journal article citations the manuscript receives.In additional analyses (for which we categorized the manuscripts as psychological and non-psychological manuscripts), we found that the significant prediction of citations stems from the psychological and not the non-psychological manuscripts.In Study 2, we observed that Facebook likes (N = 270) and non-zero Facebook likes (n = 84) do not predict traditional impact indicators.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Chair for Strategy and Organization, TUM School of Management, Technische Universität München, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.

ABSTRACT
Due to the increasing amount of scientific work and the typical delays in publication, promptly assessing the impact of scholarly work is a huge challenge. To meet this challenge, one solution may be to create and discover innovative indicators. The goal of this paper is to investigate whether Facebook likes for unpublished manuscripts that are uploaded to the Internet could be used as an early indicator of the future impact of the scientific work. To address our research question, we compared Facebook likes for manuscripts uploaded to the Harvard Business School website (Study 1) and the bioRxiv website (Study 2) with traditional impact indicators (journal article citations, Impact Factor, Immediacy Index) for those manuscripts that have been published as a journal article. Although based on our full sample of Study 1 (N = 170), Facebook likes do not predict traditional impact indicators, for manuscripts with one or more Facebook likes (n = 95), our results indicate that the more Facebook likes a manuscript receives, the more journal article citations the manuscript receives. In additional analyses (for which we categorized the manuscripts as psychological and non-psychological manuscripts), we found that the significant prediction of citations stems from the psychological and not the non-psychological manuscripts. In Study 2, we observed that Facebook likes (N = 270) and non-zero Facebook likes (n = 84) do not predict traditional impact indicators. Taken together, our findings indicate an interdisciplinary difference in the predictive value of Facebook likes, according to which Facebook likes only predict citations in the psychological area but not in the non-psychological area of business or in the field of life sciences. Our paper contributes to understanding the possibilities and limits of the use of social media indicators as potential early indicators of the impact of scientific work.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Relationship between Facebook likes of bioRxiv manuscripts and citations, the Impact Factor and the Immediacy Index.βC = Beta coefficient for the regression of the control variable upload date on the criterion citations; βIF = Beta coefficient for the regression of the control variable upload date on the criterion Impact Factor; βII = Beta coefficient for the regression of the control variable upload date on the criterion Immediacy Index.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4526566&req=5

pone.0134389.g003: Relationship between Facebook likes of bioRxiv manuscripts and citations, the Impact Factor and the Immediacy Index.βC = Beta coefficient for the regression of the control variable upload date on the criterion citations; βIF = Beta coefficient for the regression of the control variable upload date on the criterion Impact Factor; βII = Beta coefficient for the regression of the control variable upload date on the criterion Immediacy Index.

Mentions: We z-standardized the variables prior to performing the regression analyses. When controlling for the upload date, Facebook likes of manuscripts uploaded on the bioRxiv website neither predicted citations (β = .07, ns), nor the Impact Factor (β = .08, ns), nor the Immediacy Index (β = .04, ns). The control variable upload date neither predictd citations (β = -.06, ns), nor the Impact Factor (β = -.03, ns) nor the Immediacy Index (β = -.00, ns). The results are presented in Fig 3.


I Like, I Cite? Do Facebook Likes Predict the Impact of Scientific Work?

Ringelhan S, Wollersheim J, Welpe IM - PLoS ONE (2015)

Relationship between Facebook likes of bioRxiv manuscripts and citations, the Impact Factor and the Immediacy Index.βC = Beta coefficient for the regression of the control variable upload date on the criterion citations; βIF = Beta coefficient for the regression of the control variable upload date on the criterion Impact Factor; βII = Beta coefficient for the regression of the control variable upload date on the criterion Immediacy Index.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4526566&req=5

pone.0134389.g003: Relationship between Facebook likes of bioRxiv manuscripts and citations, the Impact Factor and the Immediacy Index.βC = Beta coefficient for the regression of the control variable upload date on the criterion citations; βIF = Beta coefficient for the regression of the control variable upload date on the criterion Impact Factor; βII = Beta coefficient for the regression of the control variable upload date on the criterion Immediacy Index.
Mentions: We z-standardized the variables prior to performing the regression analyses. When controlling for the upload date, Facebook likes of manuscripts uploaded on the bioRxiv website neither predicted citations (β = .07, ns), nor the Impact Factor (β = .08, ns), nor the Immediacy Index (β = .04, ns). The control variable upload date neither predictd citations (β = -.06, ns), nor the Impact Factor (β = -.03, ns) nor the Immediacy Index (β = -.00, ns). The results are presented in Fig 3.

Bottom Line: Although based on our full sample of Study 1 (N = 170), Facebook likes do not predict traditional impact indicators, for manuscripts with one or more Facebook likes (n = 95), our results indicate that the more Facebook likes a manuscript receives, the more journal article citations the manuscript receives.In additional analyses (for which we categorized the manuscripts as psychological and non-psychological manuscripts), we found that the significant prediction of citations stems from the psychological and not the non-psychological manuscripts.In Study 2, we observed that Facebook likes (N = 270) and non-zero Facebook likes (n = 84) do not predict traditional impact indicators.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Chair for Strategy and Organization, TUM School of Management, Technische Universität München, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.

ABSTRACT
Due to the increasing amount of scientific work and the typical delays in publication, promptly assessing the impact of scholarly work is a huge challenge. To meet this challenge, one solution may be to create and discover innovative indicators. The goal of this paper is to investigate whether Facebook likes for unpublished manuscripts that are uploaded to the Internet could be used as an early indicator of the future impact of the scientific work. To address our research question, we compared Facebook likes for manuscripts uploaded to the Harvard Business School website (Study 1) and the bioRxiv website (Study 2) with traditional impact indicators (journal article citations, Impact Factor, Immediacy Index) for those manuscripts that have been published as a journal article. Although based on our full sample of Study 1 (N = 170), Facebook likes do not predict traditional impact indicators, for manuscripts with one or more Facebook likes (n = 95), our results indicate that the more Facebook likes a manuscript receives, the more journal article citations the manuscript receives. In additional analyses (for which we categorized the manuscripts as psychological and non-psychological manuscripts), we found that the significant prediction of citations stems from the psychological and not the non-psychological manuscripts. In Study 2, we observed that Facebook likes (N = 270) and non-zero Facebook likes (n = 84) do not predict traditional impact indicators. Taken together, our findings indicate an interdisciplinary difference in the predictive value of Facebook likes, according to which Facebook likes only predict citations in the psychological area but not in the non-psychological area of business or in the field of life sciences. Our paper contributes to understanding the possibilities and limits of the use of social media indicators as potential early indicators of the impact of scientific work.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus