BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Isabella Peters

Isabella Peters contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Digital Librariesphysics.soc-phSocial and Information Networkscs.CY

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

The many facets of academic mobility and its impact on scholars' career

International mobility in academia can enhance the human and social capital of researchers and consequently their scientific outcome. However, there is still a very limited understanding of the different mobility patterns among scholars with various socio-demographic characteristics. The aim of this study is twofold. First, we investigate to what extent individual factors associate with the mobility of researchers. Second, we explore the relationship between mobility and scientific activity and impact. For this purpose, we used a bibliometric approach to track the mobility of authors. To compare the scientific outcomes of researchers, we considered the number of publications and received citations as indicators, as well as the number of unique co-authors in all their publications. We also analysed the co-authorship network of researchers and compared centrality measures of mobile and non-mobile researchers. Results show that researchers from North America and Sub-Saharan Africa, particularly female ones, have the lowest, respectively, highest tendency towards international mobility. Having international co-authors increases the probability of international movement. Our findings uncover gender inequality in international mobility across scientific fields and countries. Across genders, researchers in the Physical sciences have the most and in the Social sciences the least rate of mobility. We observed more mobility for Social scientists at the advanced career stage, while researchers in other fields prefer to move at earlier career stages. Also, we found a positive correlation between mobility and scientific outcomes, but no apparent difference between females and males. Comparing the centrality of mobile and non-mobile researchers in the co-authorship networks reveals a higher social capital advantage for mobile researchers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Astrophysicists on Twitter: An in-depth analysis of tweeting and scientific publication behavior

This paper analyzes the tweeting behavior of 37 astrophysicists on Twitter and compares their tweeting behavior with their publication behavior and citation impact to show whether they tweet research-related topics or not. Astrophysicists on Twitter are selected to compare their tweets with their publications from Web of Science. Different user groups are identified based on tweeting and publication frequency. A moderate negative correlation (p=-0.390*) is found between the number of publications and tweets per day, while retweet and citation rates do not correlate. The similarity between tweets and abstracts is very low (cos=0.081). User groups show different tweeting behavior such as retweeting and including hashtags, usernames and URLs. The study is limited in terms of the small set of astrophysicists. Results are not necessarily representative of the entire astrophysicist community on Twitter and they most certainly do not apply to scientists in general. Future research should apply the methods to a larger set of researchers and other scientific disciplines. To a certain extent, this study helps to understand how researchers use Twitter. The results hint at the fact that impact on Twitter can neither be equated with nor replace traditional research impact metrics. However, tweets and other so-called altmetrics might be able to reflect other impact of scientists such as public outreach and science communication. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first in-depth study comparing researchers' tweeting activity and behavior with scientific publication output in terms of quantity, content and impact.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Government and Social Media: A Case Study of 31 Informational World Cities

Social media platforms are increasingly being used by governments to foster user interaction. Particularly in cities with enhanced ICT infrastructures (i.e., Informational World Cities) and high internet penetration rates, social media platforms are valuable tools for reaching high numbers of citizens. This empirical investigation of 31 Informational World Cities will provide an overview of social media services used for governmental purposes, of their popularity among governments, and of their usage intensity in broadcasting information online.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ?

A set of 1.4 million biomedical papers was analyzed with regards to how often articles are mentioned on Twitter or saved by users on Mendeley. While Twitter is a microblogging platform used by a general audience to distribute information, Mendeley is a reference manager targeted at an academic user group to organize scholarly literature. Both platforms are used as sources for so-called altmetrics to measure a new kind of research impact. This analysis shows in how far they differ and compare to traditional citation impact metrics based on a large set of PubMed papers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community

Altmetrics, indices based on social media platforms and tools, have recently emerged as alternative means of measuring scholarly impact. Such indices assume that scholars in fact populate online social environments, and interact with scholarly products there. We tested this assumption by examining the use and coverage of social media environments amongst a sample of bibliometricians. As expected, coverage varied: 82% of articles published by sampled bibliometricians were included in Mendeley libraries, while only 28% were included in CiteULike. Mendeley bookmarking was moderately correlated (.45) with Scopus citation. Over half of respondents asserted that social media tools were affecting their professional lives, although uptake of online tools varied widely. 68% of those surveyed had LinkedIn accounts, while Academia.edu, Mendeley, and ResearchGate each claimed a fifth of respondents. Nearly half of those responding had Twitter accounts, which they used both personally and professionally. Surveyed bibliometricians had mixed opinions on altmetrics' potential; 72% valued download counts, while a third saw potential in tracking articles' influence in blogs, Wikipedia, reference managers, and social media. Altogether, these findings suggest that some online tools are seeing substantial use by bibliometricians, and that they present a potentially valuable source of impact data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Tweeting biomedicine: an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature

Data collected by social media platforms have recently been introduced as a new source for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation-based indicators. Data generated from social media activities related to scholarly content can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This paper aims to provide systematic evidence regarding how often Twitter is used to diffuse journal articles in the biomedical and life sciences. The analysis is based on a set of 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science (WoS) and published between 2010 and 2012. The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter. It is shown that, with less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general. The relationship between tweets and WoS citations was examined for each document at the level of journals and specialties. The results show that tweeting behavior varies between journals and specialties and correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework utilizing the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media based metrics and to shed light on the question in how far the number of tweets is a valid metric to measure research impact.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Beyond citations: Scholars' visibility on the social Web

Traditionally, scholarly impact and visibility have been measured by counting publications and citations in the scholarly literature. However, increasingly scholars are also visible on the Web, establishing presences in a growing variety of social ecosystems. But how wide and established is this presence, and how do measures of social Web impact relate to their more traditional counterparts? To answer this, we sampled 57 presenters from the 2010 Leiden STI Conference, gathering publication and citations counts as well as data from the presenters' Web "footprints." We found Web presence widespread and diverse: 84% of scholars had homepages, 70% were on LinkedIn, 23% had public Google Scholar profiles, and 16% were on Twitter. For sampled scholars' publications, social reference manager bookmarks were compared to Scopus and Web of Science citations; we found that Mendeley covers more than 80% of sampled articles, and that Mendeley bookmarks are significantly correlated (r=.45) to Scopus citation counts.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access