Document Type : Articles


1 Payame Noor University

2 Shahid Beheshti University

3 National Library of Iran


The current study aims to calculate the relationship between Altmetric scores obtained from the observation and dissemination of digital library resources in the Dimensions database and the number of citations received in the Scopus database. Also, in another part of the research, the predictive power of the number of Scopus citations by Altmetric scores is examined. The present research is applied in terms of purpose and survey-descriptive in terms of type, which is done by the scientometric method and with an Altmetric approach. The statistical population of the study includes all articles in the field of digital libraries (24183 records) that are indexed in the Scopus citation database during 1960-2020. Dimensions database has been used to evaluate the Altmetric scores obtained from these articles on social networks. Due to the limited access to the required data in the Scopus database, 2000 highly cited articles in the field of digital libraries in this Scopus database were studied through the Dimensions database. The data collection tools are Scopus Citation Database and Dimensions Database. The required data is collected through the Scopus database. In this study, the studied indicators from the Dimensions database appear as the independent variable of the research. The dependent variables in this study are the number of citations to articles in the Scopus database. Correlation tests and multiple regression between the studied indices are used to examine the relationships between variables and perform statistical tests. The software used is Excel and SPSS version 23. The present study results show that the social networks Patent, Facebook, Wikipedia, and Twitter have the highest correlation with the number of citations in the Dimensions database. The social networks Blog, Google User, and Q&A do not significantly relate to the number of citations received in Dimensions. Patent social networks, Wikipedia, and Twitter have the highest correlation with the number of Scopus citations. In this case, the social networks of Blog, Google User, Pulse Source and Q&A do not significantly correlate with the number of citations received. Among the citation databases studied, Mendeley has the highest correlation between the numbers of citations. Other results indicate that the publication and viewing of documents on social networks cannot predict the number of citations in the Dimensions and Scopus databases.


  1. ‏‫‏‫‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬
  2. ‏‫‫‏‫‬‬‬‬Biranvand, Ali. (2021). Investigating the relationship between Altmetric Scores of highly cited articles in the field of particle physics and citations received in databases. Journal of Studies in Library and Information Science.‬‬‬
  3. ‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬
  4. Biranvand, Ali; Samie, Mohammad Ebrahim; & Rahmaniyan, Sareh. (2021). Investigating the Relationships between Activity of Iranian Producers in the Field of Business Management in Social Networks with the Scientometric Indices of Databases. Knowledge Studies, 7(26).
  5. Biranvand, Ali; & Shanbedi, Zahra. (2020a). Investigating the effect of Altmetrics index of ResearchGate social network on research activities of Iranian authors and researchers in the field of nursing in databases. Knowledge Studies.
  7. Biranvand, Ali; & Shanbedi, Zahra. (2020b). Investigation of Altmetrics indices obtained from the activities of Iranian writers and researchers in the field of nursing in scientific social networks. Journal of Library and Information Science Studies.
  9. Chawinga, Winner Dominic. (2017). Taking social media to a university classroom: teaching and learning using Twitter and blogs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 3.
  10. Costas, Rodrigo; Zahedi, Zohreh; & Wouters, Paul. (2015). Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 66(10), 2003-2019. Retrieved from
  11. Lawton, Aoife. (2016). Social Networking Tools for Informal Scholarly Communication Prove Popular for Academics at Two Universities. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 11(2), 195-197.
  12. Mason, Shannon. (2020). Adoption and usage of Academic Social Networks: a Japan case study. Scientometrics, 122(3), 1751-1767.
  13. Mohammadi, Ehsan; & Thelwall, Mike. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 65(8), 1627-1638. Retrieved from
  15. Mohammadi, Ehsan; Thelwall, Mike; Haustein, Stefanie; & Lariviere, Vincent. (2015). Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of M endeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(9), 1832–1846.
  16. Ortega, Jose Luis. (2018). Reliability and accuracy of altmetric providers: a comparison among, PlumX and Crossref Event Data. Scientometrics, 116(3), 2123-2138.
  17. Priem, Jason; Piwowar, Heather A; & Hemminger, Bradley M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.4745.
  18. Shrivastava, RISHABH; & Mahajan, Preeti. (2015). Relationship amongst ResearchGate altmetric indicators and Scopus bibliometric indicators: The case of Panjab University Chandigarh (India). New Library World, 116(9/10), 564-577.
  19. Shrivastava, Rishabh; & Mahajan, Preeti. (2016). Relationship between citation counts and Mendeley readership metrics: A case of top 100 cited papers in Physics. New Library World.
  20. Shrivastava, Rishabh; & Mahajan, Preeti. (2017). An altmetric analysis of ResearchGate profiles of physics researchers. Performance Measurement and Metrics.
  21. Tang, Yingqi; Tseng, Hungwei; & Vann, Charlcie. (2020). Unwrap citation count, Altmetric Attention Score and Mendeley readership status of highly cited articles in the top-tier LIS journals. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication.
  22. Tess, Paul A. (2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual) – A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A60-A68.
  23. Thelwall, Mike. (2012). Journal impact evaluation: a webometric perspective. Scientometrics, 92(2), 429-441.
  24. Thelwall, Mike. (2017). Do Mendeley reader counts indicate the value of arts and humanities research? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(3), 781-788.
  25. Thelwall, Mike; & Kousha, Kayvan. (2014). Social network or Academic Network? Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 65(4), 721-731. Retrieved from
  26. Thelwall, Mike; & Kousha, Kayvan. (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5).
  27. Thelwall, Mike; & Kousha, Kayvan. (2017). ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations? Scientometrics, 112(2), 1125-1131.
  28. Wouters, Paul; Zahedi, Zohreh; & Costas, Rodrigo. (2019). Social Media Metrics for New Research Evaluation. In W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (eds.), (W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall, eds.), Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 687-713). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  29. Zahedi, Zohreh; Fenner, Martin; & Costas, Rodrigo. (2014). How consistent are altmetrics providers? Study of 1000 PLOS ONE publications using the PLOS ALM, Mendeley and Altmetric. com APIs. In Altmetrics 14. Workshop at the Web Science Conference, Bloomington, USA.