Ezema, Ifeanyi J.Ugwu, Cyprian I.2025-09-242025-09-242017Adie, E & Roe, W (2013). Altmetrics: enriching the scholarly content with article-level discussion and metrics. Learned Publishing, 26, 11 -17. Brody, T, Harnad, S & Carr, L (2005). Earlier web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 1060 – 1072. Delgaldo-Lopez-Cozar, E & Cabezas-Clavijo, A (2012). Google scholar metrics: An unreliable tool for assessing scientific journals. El Professional De La Informacion, 21, 419 – 427. Eysenbach, G. (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), 1 20. Ezema, I. J & Onyancha, O.B. (2016). A Bibliometric Analysis of Health and Medical Journals: Issues in Medical Scholarly Communication in Africa. Serials Review, 42(2), 116 – 128. Galligan, F (2012). Altmetrics for librarians and institutions: Part 1. [Blog post]. Swets blog. Available at http://www.swets.com/blog/altmetrics-for-librarians-and-institutions-part i#.UJAmnVmhkyI Galligan, F & Dyas-Correia, S (2013). Altmetrics: Rethinking the way we measure. Serials Review, 39, 56 – 61. Haustein, S (2012). Readership metrics. In Cronin B, Sugimoto, C (eds.). Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multi-dimensional indicators of performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hirsch, J.E (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceeding of the National Academy of Science, 102(46), 16569 – 16572.Doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102. Howard, J (2012). Scholars seek better ways to track impact online. . The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 29. Available at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ984789 (Accessed May 23, 2017). Kortelainen, T & Katvala, M (2012). Everything is plentiful – except attention: The attention data of scientific journals on social web tools. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 661 – 668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.06.004 Kousha, K & Thelwall, M (2007). Google scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 1055 – 1065. Li,X, Thelwall, M & Giustini, D (2011). Validating online reference manager for scholarly impact measurement (FP). Paper presented at ISSI Conference; Durban 4 -7 July 2011. Meho, L.I & Yank K (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and ranking of LIS faculty: Web of Science vs Scopus and Google scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2105 – 2125 Moed, H.F (2005). Statistical relationship between downloads and downloads at the level of individual documents within a single journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56, 1088 – 1097. Ortega, J.L (2015). Relation between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC’s members. Journal of Informetrics, 9, 39 – 49. Pinkowitz, L (2002). Research dissemination and impact: Evidence from web site downloads. Journal of Finance, 57, 485 – 499. Piwowar, H (2013). Altmetrics: what, why and where. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 39(1), 8 – 9. Priem, J. (2014). Altmetrics. In B. Cronin & C. R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. MIT Press. Priem, J. Hermminger, B.M. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: Towards new metrics of scholarly impact on the social web. First Monday 15. Available at http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2874/2570 (Accessed May 5, 2017). The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA): Putting science into the assessment of research. Available at http://am.ascb.org.dora/ (Accessed May 23, 2017) Shema, H, Bar-Ilan, J & Thelwall, M (2013). Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics. Available at http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~cm1993/papers/blogCitations.pdf (Accessed May 25, 2017) Smith, R (2001). Measuring the social impact of research: Difficult but necessary. BMJ, 323(7312), 528. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121118/ (Accessed May 23, 2017) Thelwall, M (2009). Introduction to webometrics: Quantitative web research for the Social Sciences. Wolver Hampton: Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group. Available at https://seminarioec3.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/thelwall.pdf (Accessed May 23, 2017). Thelwall,M, Haustein, S, Lariviere, V & Sugimoto, C.R (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. Plos One, 8(5), 1 – 7. Tenopir, C & King, D.W (2000). Towards electronic journals: Realities for scientists, librarians and publishers. Washington DC: Special Libraries Association. Vaughan, L (2005). Web link counts correlate with ISI impact factors: Evidence two disciplines. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39,436. Doi: 10.1002/meet.1450390148. Vaughan, L & Shaw, D. (2003). Bibliographic and web citations: What is the difference. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(14), 1313 – 1322. Doi: 10.1002/asi.10338. Zhao, Y & Wolfram, D (2015). Assessing the popularity of the top-tier journals in the LIS field on Twitter. Proceedings of the 78th ASIS&T Annual Meeting: Information Science with Impact: Research in and for the Community, Article No. 92, St. Louis, Missouri — November 06 – 10, 2015. DOI: 10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010092https://repository.ifla.org/handle/20.500.14598/6096Since the development of web 2.0, there has been a paradigm shift in methods of knowledge sharing. This has equally impacted on techniques of research evaluation. Many scholars have argued that the social utilization of research is hardly reflected in the traditional methods of research evaluation. This study is an attempt to contribute to this discussion with focus on the field of library and information science. The study extracted citation data from Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar, and altmetric attentions from 85 LIS journals indexed by Web of Science. Further, eighteen journals with high altmetric attention were identified, while nine of the journals maintained consistent presence in the three databases used. Of the three databases, citation data from Google scholar had a high correlation with altmetric attention of the 85 LIS journals while the other two databases maintained moderate correlations with altmetric attention of the journals. The study also found a positive correlation between citation scores and altmetric attention of the nine journals that maintained consistent presence in the three databases.enAttribution 4.0 Internationalhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Articlehttp://2017.ifla.org/open accessBibliometricsCitation analysisResearch evaluationAltmetricsScholarly communicationSocial media