And they try, and they praise, but they don’t marry: Once again about the connection between downloads, views and citations
https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-22-47
Abstract
The question of the possible influence of the number of views / downloads of scientific articles from journal websites, as well as the number of their mentions in social networks on the number of subsequent citations of these publications is considered. In particular, an analysis of some of such correlations is carried out on the example of 39 Russian translated journals of biological orientation distributed by the Springer Nature publishing house. Data from 2019–2021 was used regarding the number of article downloads, impact factors of editions, their SJR, CiteScore, SNIP, and usage factors. An analysis of the results obtained, as well as data available on the Internet, allowed the authors to conclude that the relationship between the number of downloads or altmetrics and the number of citations is not very strong, although it is quite reliable. It is emphasized that at present a large number of downloads / views of articles are carried out by users who are not engaged in science and, accordingly, do not write articles for academic journals. They are simply interested in scientific research results, and the Internet is now available to almost anyone. This also applies to the discussion of scientific publications in social networks. Apparently, the frequent mention of work in such networks really stimulates its downloads – however, this becomes obvious only if the article is an open access one, because the majority of “law-abiding” users of social networks do not have legal access to publications in subscription editions. The mentioned circumstances, according to the authors, will lead to a gradual weakening of the correlations considered in the article.
About the Authors
A. N. Khokhlov
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexander N. Khokhlov - Dr. Sci. (Biol.), Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the journals Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 16. Biologiya and Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin, Head of Evolutionary Cytogerontology Sector, School of Biology, Lomonosov MSU.
Moscow
G. V. Morgunova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Galina V. Morgunova - Cand. Sci. (Biol.), Managing Editor of the journals Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 16. Biologiya and Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin, Leading Researcher at Evolutionary Cytogerontology Sector, School of Biology, Lomonosov MSU.
Moscow
References
1. Хохлов А. Н., Моргунова Г.В. О некоторых альтернативных подходах к оценке эффективности научных журналов. В: Научное издание международного уровня – 2015: современные тенденции в мировой практике редактирования, издания и оценки научных публикаций: материалы 4-й Междунар. науч.-практ. конф., Санкт-Петербург, 26–29 мая 2015 г. СПб.: Сев.-Зап. ин-т упр. – фил. РАНХиГС; 2015. С. 174–178.
2. Марголис А. А., Пономарева В. В., Сорокова М. Г. Особенности «российского Хирша»: предикторы цитируемости научных статей в РИНЦ. Вопросы образования. 2020;(1):230–255. https://doi.org/10.17323/18149545-2020-1-230-255
3. Moed H. F. Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics. 2010;4(3):265–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.01.002
4. Арефьев П. Г., Еременко Г.О., Глухов В. А. Российский индекс научного цитирования – инструмент для анализа науки. Библиосфера. 2012;(5):66–71. Режим доступа: https://www.bibliosphere.ru/jour/article/view/716 (дата обращения: 15.08.2022).
5. Moed H. F. Comprehensive indicator comparisons intelligible to non-experts: The case of two SNIP versions. Scientometrics. 2016;106(1):51–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1781-5
6. Moed H. F. From journal impact factor to SJR, Eigenfactor, SNIP, CiteScore and usage factor. In: Applied Evaluative Informetrics. Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Scientific and Scholarly Communication. Cham: Springer; 2017, pp. 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60522-7_16
7. Кириллова О.В., Тихонова Е. В. Критерии качества научного журнала: измерение и значимость. Научный редактор и издатель. 2022;7(1):12–27. https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-22-39
8. Khokhlov A. N. How scientometrics became the most important science for researchers of all specialties. Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin. 2020;75(4):159–163. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0096392520040057
9. Хохлов А. Н., Моргунова Г. В. Научные публикации – хорошие, плохие, за пригоршню долларов. Научный редактор и издатель. 2021;6(1):59–67. https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2021-1-59-67
10. Khokhlov A. N., Morgunova G. V. Is it worth teaching biology students the basics of scientometrics and the instructions for the design of scientific articles, and if so, why? Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin. 2021;76(3):77–82. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0096392521030081
11. Хохлов А. Н., Моргунова Г. В. Журналы-«травоядные» против журналов-«хищников» – битва уже проиграна, что дальше? Научный редактор и издатель. 2022;7(1 Suppl):S40–S46. https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-22-18
12. Kirpichnikov M. P., Morgunova G. V., Khokhlov A. N. Our journal–2020: what and how we publish. Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin. 2020;75(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0096392520010034
13. Morgunova G. V., Khokhlov A. N. 75 Years of the journal Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta and 45 years of its biological series. Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin. 2022;77(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.3103/ S0096392522010023
14. Куламер Б., Мистер В., Солк Д., Блейр-деЛеон Н., МакПирсон Г., Мозес У., Филиппидис А., Чапман К., Смит Д., Стонхем Я., Вукмирович К. Практические рекомендации для обеспечения качества материалов технической конференции. Научный редактор и издатель. 2017;2(1):47–51. https://doi.org/10.24069/25420267-2017-1-1-12
15. Farisenkov S. E., Kolomenskiy D., Petrov P. N., Engels T., Lapina N. A., Lehmann F. O., Onishi R., Liu H., Polilov A. A. Novel flight style and light wings boost flight performance of tiny beetles. Nature. 2022;602(7895):96–100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04303-7
16. Xue-li L., Hong-ling F., Mei-ying W. Correlation between download and citation and download-citation deviation phenomenon for some papers in Chinese medical journals. Serials Review. 2011;37(3):157–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2011.02.001
17. Moed H. F., Halevi G. On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2016;67(2):412–431. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23405
18. Schloegl C., Gorraiz J. Comparison of citation and usage indicators: the case of oncology journals. Scientometrics. 2010;82(3):567–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0172-1
19. Vaughan L., Tang J., Yang R. Investigating disciplinary differences in the relationships between citations and downloads. Scientometrics. 2017;111(3):1533–1545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2308-z
20. Ding Y., Dong X., Bu Y., Zhang B., Lin K., Hu B. Revisiting the relationship between downloads and citations: a perspective from papers with different citation patterns in the case of the Lancet. Scientometrics. 2021;126(9):7609–7621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04099-3
21. Hu B., Ding Y., Dong X., Bu Y., Ding Y. On the relationship between download and citation counts: An introduction of Granger-causality inference. Journal of Informetrics. 2021;15(2):101125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101125
Review
Supporting agencies: There was no funding for the work
For citations:
Khokhlov A.N., Morgunova G.V. And they try, and they praise, but they don’t marry: Once again about the connection between downloads, views and citations. Science Editor and Publisher. 2022;7(2):191-201. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-22-47
Views: 364
Email this article 
