Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3530019.3530038acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageseaseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Incorporating Altmetrics to Support Selection and Assessment of Publications During Literature Analyses

Published: 13 June 2022 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Background. The constantly increasing number of scientific publications poses challenges for researchers to monitor, select, and assess the publications relevant for their own research. Several guidelines for assessing publications manually during a literature analysis exist, with researchers proposing (semi-)automated techniques to facilitate such assessments. Aims. Still, research indicates that current techniques require further improvements to facilitate the analysis of large sets of publications. In this paper, we propose a semi-automatic technique with which we aim to improve in this direction by facilitating the selection and assessment of publications. Method. Our technique uses publicly available data of a publication, namely citation counts, article-level metrics, venue metrics, and altmetrics, to guide an analyst in assessing its relevance and impact. To evaluate the feasibility of our technique and the included metrics, we performed an experimental analysis to automatically assign ratings to the retrieved publications. Results. The results indicate that our technique can help an analyst in assessing publications, and reduce manual effort. Through our technique, we achieve an average accuracy of 53 % with a recall of 71 %. While precision (14 %) and F1-score (21 %) are—not surprisingly, due to the high number of irrelevant results returned by automatic searches in digital libraries—low, we see an improvement of these values for more recent reviews for which we could collect more complete data. However, some manual effort is still required for the final selection of papers. Conclusions. While it is not possible to achieve full automation for selecting and quality assessing publications, we can see that our metrics-based technique can be a helpful means to provide an initial rating for the analyst. Also, incorporating altmetrics seems to be a promising addition to rate comparably recent publications, helping researchers to further facilitate the execution of literature analyses.

    References

    [1]
    Ramon Abilio, Flávio Morais, Gustavo Vale, Claudiane Oliveira, Denilson Pereira, and Heitor Costa. 2015. Applying Information Retrieval Techniques to Detect Duplicates and to Rank References in the Preliminary Phases of Systematic Literature Reviews. CLEI Electronic Journal 18, 2 (2015), 1–24.
    [2]
    Kuku J. Aduku, Mike Thelwall, and Kayvan Kousha. 2017. Do Mendeley Reader Counts Reflect the Scholarly Impact of Conference Papers? An Investigation of Computer Science and Engineering. Scientometrics 112, 1 (2017), 573–581.
    [3]
    Dag W. Aksnes, Liv Langfeldt, and Paul Wouters. 2019. Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories. SAGE Open 9, 1 (2019).
    [4]
    Ahmed Al-Shaaby, Hamoud Aljamaan, and Mohammad Alshayeb. 2020. Bad Smell Detection Using Machine Learning Techniques: A Systematic Literature Review. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering(2020), 1–29.
    [5]
    Abdulrahman A. B. Baqais and Mohammad Alshayeb. 2019. Automatic Software Refactoring: A Systematic Literature Review. Software Quality Journal(2019), 1–44.
    [6]
    Joeran Beel and Bela Gipp. 2009. Google Scholar’s Ranking Algorithm: The Impact of Citation Counts (An Empirical Study). In International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Systems (RCIS). 439–446.
    [7]
    Woubshet N. Behutiye, Pilar Rodríguez, Markku Oivo, and Ayşe Tosun. 2017. Analyzing the Concept of Technical Debt in the Context of Agile Software Development: A Systematic Literature Review. Information and Software Technology 82 (2017), 139–158.
    [8]
    Lutz Bornmann. 2014. Do Altmetrics Point to the Broader Impact of Research? An Overview of Benefits and Disadvantages of Altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics 8, 4 (2014), 895–903.
    [9]
    Lutz Bornmann and Hans-Dieter Daniel. 2007. What do we Know About the h-Index?Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 58, 9(2007), 1381–1385.
    [10]
    Tara J. Brigham. 2014. An Introduction to Altmetrics. Medical Reference Services Quarterly 33, 4 (2014), 438–447.
    [11]
    Meredith Brown. 2014. Is Almetrics an Acceptable Replacement for Citation Counts and the Impact Factor?The Serials Librarian 67, 1 (2014), 27–30.
    [12]
    Rodrigo Costas, Zohreh Zahedi, and Paul Wouters. 2015. Do “Altmetrics” Correlate with Citations? Extensive Comparison of Altmetric Indicators with Citations from a Multidisciplinary Perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66, 10(2015), 2003–2019.
    [13]
    David Crotty. 2014. Altmetrics: Finding Meaningful Needles in the Data Haystack. Serials review 40, 3 (2014), 141–146.
    [14]
    Tore Dybå and Torgeir Dingsøyr. 2008. Strength of Evidence in Systematic Reviews in Software Engineering. In International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement(ESEM). 178–187.
    [15]
    Gunther Eysenbach. 2011. Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research 13, 4 (2011).
    [16]
    Sandra Fabbri, Cleiton Silva, Elis Hernandes, Fábio Octaviano, André D. Thommazo, and Anderson Belgamo. 2016. Improvements in the StArt Tool to Better Support the Systematic Review Process. In International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering(EASE). ACM, 1–5.
    [17]
    Linda M. Galloway, Janet L. Pease, and Anne E. Rauh. 2013. Introduction to Altmetrics for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Librarians. Science & Technology Libraries 32, 4 (2013), 335–345.
    [18]
    Julián A. García-García, Jose G. Enríquez, Mercedes Ruiz, Carlos Arevalo, and Andrés Jiménez-Ramírez. 2020. Software Process Simulation Modelling: Systematic Literature Review. Computer Standards & Interfaces(2020).
    [19]
    Ioannis A. Giannakakis, Anna-Bettina Haidich, Despina G. Contopoulos-Ioannidis, George N. Papanikolaou, Maria S. Baltogianni, and John P. A. Ioannidis. 2002. Citation of Randomized Evidence in Support of Guidelines of Therapeutic and Preventive Interventions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 55, 6 (2002), 545–555.
    [20]
    Edgar Hassler, Jeffrey C. Carver, David Hale, and Ahmed Al-Zubidy. 2016. Identification of SLR Tool Needs – Results of a Community Workshop. Information and Software Technology 70 (2016), 122–129.
    [21]
    Barbara A. Kitchenham, David Budgen, and Pearl Brereton. 2015. Evidence-Based Software Engineering and Systematic Reviews. CRC Press.
    [22]
    Barbara A. Kitchenham and Stuart Charters. 2007. Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. Technical Report EBSE-2007-01. Keele University and University of Durham.
    [23]
    Antti Knutas, Jouni Ikonen, and Jari Porras. 2015. Computer-supported Collaborative Learning in Software Engineering Education: A Systematic Mapping Study. International Journal on Information Technologies & Security 7, 4(2015), 45–72.
    [24]
    Jacob Krüger, Christian Lausberger, Ivonne von Nostitz-Wallwitz, Gunter Saake, and Thomas Leich. 2019. Search. Review. Repeat? An Empirical Study of Threats to Replicating SLR Searches. Empirical Software Engineering(2019), 1–51.
    [25]
    Abhaya V. Kulkarni, Brittany Aziz, Iffat Shams, and Jason W. Busse. 2009. Comparisons of Citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for Articles Published in General Medical Journals. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 302, 10(2009), 1092–1096.
    [26]
    Duncan Lindsey. 1989. Using Citation Counts as a Measure of Quality in Science Measuring What’s Measurable Rather than What’s Valid. Scientometrics 15, 3-4 (1989), 189–203.
    [27]
    Dapeng Liu, Qing Wang, and Junchao Xiao. 2009. The Role of Software Process Simulation Modeling in Software Risk Management: A Systematic Review. In International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). IEEE, 302–311.
    [28]
    Viviane Malheiros, Erika Höhnr, Roberto Pinho, Manoel Mendonca, and José C. Maldonado. 2007. A Visual Text Mining Approach for Systematic Reviews. In International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement(ESEM). IEEE, 245–254.
    [29]
    Christopher Marshall and Pearl Brereton. 2013. Tools to Support Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering: A Mapping Study. In International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement(ESEM). IEEE, 296–299.
    [30]
    Henk F. Moed. 2010. Measuring Contextual Citation Impact of Scientific Journals. Journal of Informetrics 4, 3 (2010), 265–277.
    [31]
    Ehsan Mohammadi, Mike Thelwall, Stefanie Haustein, and Vincent Larivière. 2015. Who Reads Research Articles? An Altmetrics Analysis of Mendeley User Categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66, 9(2015), 1832–1846.
    [32]
    Almendra Nuñez, Arturo Moquillaza, and Freddy Paz. 2019. Web Accessibility Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review. In Design, User Experience, and Usability. Practice and Case Studies. Springer, 226–237.
    [33]
    Andrea G. Nuzzolese, Paolo Ciancarini, Aldo Gangemi, Silvio Peroni, Francesco Poggi, and Valentina Presutti. 2019. Do Altmetrics Work for Assessing Research Quality?Scientometrics 118, 2 (2019), 539–562.
    [34]
    Fábio R. Octaviano, Katia R. Felizardo, José C. Maldonado, and Sandra C. P. F. Fabbri. 2015. Semi-automatic Selection of Primary Studies in Systematic Literature Reviews: Is it Reasonable?Empirical Software Engineering 20, 6 (2015), 1898–1917.
    [35]
    Guy Paré, Marie-Claude Trudel, Mirou Jaana, and Spyros Kitsiou. 2015. Synthesizing Information Systems Knowledge: A Typology of Literature Reviews. Information & Management 52, 2 (2015), 183–199.
    [36]
    Antoine Ponsard, Francisco Escalona, and Tamara Munzner. 2016. PaperQuest: A Visualization Tool to Support Literature Review. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI). ACM, 2264–2271.
    [37]
    Jason Priem, Paul Groth, and Dario Taraborelli. 2012. The Altmetrics Collection. PLoS one 7, 11 (2012).
    [38]
    Giuseppe Rizzo, Federico Tomassetti, Antonio Vetro, Luca Ardito, Marco Torchiano, Maurizio Morisio, and Raphael Troncy. 2017. Semantic Enrichment for Recommendation of Primary Studies in a Systematic Literature Review. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 32, 1 (2017), 195–208.
    [39]
    Karen A. Robinson and Steven Goodman. 2011. A Systematic Examination of the Citation of Prior Research in Reports of Randomized, Controlled Trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 154, 1 (2011), 50–55.
    [40]
    Yusra Shakeel, Rand Alchokr, Jacob Krüger, Gunter Saake, and Thomas Leich. 2021. Are Altmetrics Proxies or Complements to Citations for Assessing Impact in Computer Science?. In Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL). IEEE, 284–286.
    [41]
    Yusra Shakeel, Rand Alchokr, Jacob Krüger, Gunter Saake, and Thomas Leich. 2022. Altmetrics and Citation Counts: An Empirical Analysis of the Computer Science Domain. In Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL). IEEE.
    [42]
    Yusra Shakeel, Jacob Krüger, Ivonne von Nostitz-Wallwitz, Christian Lausberger, Gabriel C. Durand, Gunter Saake, and Thomas Leich. 2018. (Automated) Literature Analysis - Threats and Experiences. In International Workshop on Software Engineering for Science(SE4Science). ACM, 20–27.
    [43]
    Yusra Shakeel, Jacob Krüger, Ivonne Von Nostitz-Wallwitz, Gunter Saake, and Thomas Leich. 2019. Automated Selection and Quality Assessment of Primary Studies: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Data and Information Quality 12, 1 (2019), 1–26.
    [44]
    Yusra Shakeel, Jacob Krüger, Gunter Saake, and Thomas Leich. 2018. Indicating Studies’ Quality based on Open Data in Digital Libraries. In International Conference on Business Information Systems(BIS). Springer, 579–590.
    [45]
    Rômulo S. Silva, Artur M. Mol, and Lucila Ishitani. 2019. Virtual Reality for Older Users: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Virtual Reality 19, 1 (2019), 11–25.
    [46]
    Igor Steinmacher, Marco A. G. Silva, Marco A. Gerosa, and David F. Redmiles. 2015. A Systematic Literature Review on the Barriers Faced by Newcomers to Open Source Software Projects. Information and Software Technology 59 (2015), 67–85.
    [47]
    Mike Thelwall and Tamara Nevill. 2018. Could Scientists Use Altmetric.com Scores to Predict Longer Term Citation Counts?Journal of Informetrics 12, 1 (2018), 237–248.
    [48]
    Mark Turner, Barbara A. Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Stuart Charters, and David Budgen. 2010. Does the Technology Acceptance Model Predict Actual Use? A Systematic Literature Review. Information and Software Technology 52, 5 (2010), 463–479.
    [49]
    Jane Webster and Richard T. Watson. 2002. Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly 26, 2 (2002), xiii–xxiii.
    [50]
    You Zhou, He Zhang, Xin Huang, Song Yang, Muhammad A. Babar, and Hao Tang. 2015. Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews in Software Engineering: A Tertiary Study. In International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering(EASE). ACM, 1–14.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2022)Are Altmetrics Useful for Assessing Scientific Impact?Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Management of Digital EcoSystems10.1145/3508397.3564845(144-147)Online publication date: 19-Oct-2022

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    EASE '22: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering
    June 2022
    466 pages
    ISBN:9781450396134
    DOI:10.1145/3530019
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 13 June 2022

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Altmetrics
    2. Literature analysis
    3. PlumX
    4. Quality assessment

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Conference

    EASE 2022

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 71 of 232 submissions, 31%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)93
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)11

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2022)Are Altmetrics Useful for Assessing Scientific Impact?Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Management of Digital EcoSystems10.1145/3508397.3564845(144-147)Online publication date: 19-Oct-2022

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Get Access

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media