How the high-impact papers formed? A study using data from social media and citation

The inverted U-shaped relationship between knowledge diversity of researchers and societal impact

With the increasing importance of interdisciplinary research, some studies have focused on the role of reference diversity by analysing reference lists of published papers. However, the relationship between the knowledge diversity of collaborating team members and research performance has been overlooked. In this study, we measured knowledge diversity through the disciplinary attributes of collaborating authors and research performance (understood as societal impact) through altmetric data. The major findings are: (1) The relationship between interdisciplinary collaboration diversity and societal impact is not a simple linear one, showing an inverted U-shaped pattern; and (2) As the number of collaborative disciplines increases, the marginal effects diminish or even become outweighed by the costs, showing a predominance of negative influences. Hence, diversity in interdisciplinary collaboration does not always have a positive impact. Research collaborations need to take into account the cost issues associated with the diversity of member disciplines.

Characteristics analysis and evaluation of discourse leading for academic journals: perspectives from multiple integration of altmetrics indicators and evaluation methods

Purpose

Under the background of open science, this paper integrates altmetrics data and combines multiple evaluation methods to analyze and evaluate the indicators' characteristics of discourse leading for academic journals, which is of great significance to enrich and improve the evaluation theory and indicator system of academic journals.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper obtained 795,631 citations and 10.3 million altmetrics indicators data for 126,424 published papers from 151 medicine, general and internal academic journals. In this paper, descriptive statistical analysis and distribution rules of evaluation indicators are first carried out at the macro level. The distribution characteristics of evaluation indicators under different international collaboration conditions are analyzed at the micro level. Second, according to the characteristics and connotation of the evaluation indicators, the evaluation indicator system is constructed. Third, correlation analysis, factor analysis, entropy weight method and TOPSIS method are adopted to evaluate and analyze the discourse leading in medicine, general and internal academic journals by integrating altmetrics. At the same time, this paper verifies the reliability of the evaluation results.

Findings

Six features of discourse leading integrated with altmetrics indicators are obtained. In the era of open science, online academic exchanges are becoming more and more popular. The evaluation activities based on altmetrics have fine-grained and procedural advantages. It is feasible and necessary to integrate altmetrics indicators and combine the advantages of multiple methods to evaluate the academic journals' discourse leading of which are in a diversified academic ecosystem.

Originality/value

This paper uses descriptive statistical analysis to analyze the distribution characteristics and distribution rules of discourse leading indicators of academic journals and to explore the availability of altmetrics indicators and the effectiveness of constructing an evaluation system. Then, combining the advantages of multiple evaluation methods, The author integrates altmetrics indicators to comprehensively evaluate the discourse leading of academic journals and verify the reliability of the evaluation results. This paper aims to provide references for enriching and improving the evaluation theory and indicator system of academic journals.

Research on the discourse power evaluation of academic journals from the perspective of multiple fusion: Taking Medicine, General and Internal journals as an example

In the open science environment, this article evaluates the discourse power of academic journals from the perspective of multiple integration. It is conducive to scientific research management and provides a reference for enriching and perfecting the evaluation theory and indicators system of academic journals. Based on the theory of evaluation science, discourse power theory and communication theory, first, this article discusses the basic issues of the discourse power evaluation for academic journals. It defines the academic discourse power and the discourse power of academic journals. It is proposed that the discourse power of academic journals is composed of discourse influence and discourse leading. Discourse influence is composed of discourse influence ability and discourse power, and discourse leading is composed of social media discourse, news and policy discourse, encyclopaedia discourse, peer-review discourse and video discourse leading. This article explores the formation process and operation mechanism of the discourse power for academic journals. Then, this article constructs the discourse power evaluation model of academic journals. Second, this article integrates multi-source heterogeneous data, then adopts correlation analysis, integrated factor analysis, entropy weight method, Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method and two-dimensional four-quadrant mapping method to conduct empirical research on the discourse power evaluation of Medicine, General and Internal journals from the perspectives of multi-dimensions, multi-factors, multi-indicators and multi-methods fusion. The results show that the research on the discourse power evaluation for academic journals based on the theory, method and application logic is practical, comprehensive and reliable.

Six Sigma in Health Literature, What Matters?

Six Sigma has been widely used in the health field for process or quality improvement, constituting a quite profusely investigated topic. This paper aims at exploring why some studies have more academic and societal impact, attracting more attention from academics and health professionals. Academic and societal impact was addressed using traditional academic metrics and alternative metrics, often known as altmetrics. We conducted a systematic search following the PRISMA statement through three well-known databases, and identified 212 papers published during 1998–2019. We conducted zero-inflated negative binomial regressions to explore the influence of bibliometric and content determinants on traditional academic and alternative metrics. We observe that the factors influencing alternative metrics are more varied and difficult to apprehend than those explaining traditional impact metrics. We also conclude that, independently of how the impact is measured, the paper’s content, rather than bibliometric characteristics, better explains its impact. In the specific case of research on Six Sigma applied to health, the papers with more impact address process improvement focusing on time and waste reduction. This study sheds light on the aspects that better explain publications’ impact in the field of Six Sigma application in health, either from an academic or a societal point of view.