Assessing the mendeley readership of social sciences and humanities research

Proceedings of ISSI 2013 - 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference

Volumn 1, Issue , 2013, Pages 200-214

  Mohammadi, Ehsan ^a   Thelwall, Mike ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Altmetrics; Beyond impact; Mendeley

Indexed keywords

ALTMETRICS; BEYOND IMPACT; HUMANITIES RESEARCH; INFORMATION FLOWS; MENDELEY; SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE; SCIENTIFIC FIELDS; SCIENTIFIC SUBJECT;

HUMANITIES COMPUTING; RESEARCH;

SOCIAL SCIENCES;

EID: 84896806260     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (54)

1. Armbruster, C. (2008). Access, Usage and Citation Metrics: What Function for Digital Libraries and Repositories in Research Evaluation? Social Science Research Network Working Paper Series, 128(Pt 6), 1407-17. SSRN. Retrieved December 2, 2012, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1088453.
2. Arolas, E. E., & Ladrón-de-Guevar, F. G. (2012). Uses of explicit and implicit tags in social bookmarking. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 313-322. doi:10.1002/asi.21663
3. Bar-Ilan, J, Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars' visibility on the social Web. 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1205/1205.5611.pdf
4. Bar-Ilan, J. (2012). JASIST 2001-2010. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 24-28.
5. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2ed). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
6. Bedeian, A. G. (2005). Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries: A Epilegomenon for Lockett and McWilliams. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(2), 151-155.
7. Blecic, D. D. (1999). Measurements of journal use: an analysis of the correlations between three methods. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 87(1), 20-5.
8. Bollen, J., Van De Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., & Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. (T. Mailund, Ed.) PLoS ONE, 4(6), e6022. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006022.
9. Bollen, J., Van De Sompel, H., Smith, J. A., & Luce, R. (2005). Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: A comparison of download and citation data. Information Processing & Management, 41(6), 1419-1440. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2005.03.024
10. Bordons, M., Morillo, F., & Gómez, I. (2005). analysis of cross-disciplinary research through bibliometric tools. In Henk F. Moed (Ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (pp. 437-456). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
11. Brody, T., Harnad, S., & Carr, L. (2006). Earlier Web Usage Statistics as Predictors of Later Citation Impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1060-1072.
12. Butler, L. (2003). Explaining Australia's increased share of ISI publications-the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32(1), 143-155.
13. Cronin, B., & Meho, L. (2007). The shifting balance of intellectual trade in information studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(4), 551-564.
14. Cronin, B., & Pearson, S. (1990). The export of ideas from information science. Journal of Information Science, 16(6), 381-391.
15. Bar-Ilan, J. (2012). JASIST 2001-2010. Bulletin of the American Society for Information..., 24-28. Retrieved November 5, 2012, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bult.2012.1720380607/full
16. Ding, Y., Jacob, E. K., Zhang, Z., Foo, S., Yan, E., George, N. L., & Guo, L. (2009). Perspectives on social tagging. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(12), 2388-2401.
17. 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), e123. doi:10.2196/jmir.2012
18. Garfield, E. (2011). Full Text downloads and citations: Some reflections. Keynote lecture at the Seminar "Scientific Measurement and Mapping." Santa Fe, New Mexico. Retrieved from http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/santafe2011.pdf
19. Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2010). The historical evolution of interdisciplinarity: 1900-2008. Eleventh International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. Leiden.
20. Goldstone, R. L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The import and export of cognitive science. Cognitive science, 30(6), 983-93.
21. Haustein, S., & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 446-457. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.04.002
22. Huang, M., & Chang, Y. (2008). Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1819-1828.
23. Krueckeberg, D. A. (1985). The Tuition of American Planning From Dependency toward Self-Reliance. The Town Planning Review, 56(4), 421-441.
24. Kurtz, M., & Bollen, J. (2010). Usage bibliometrics. Annual review of information science and Technology. Retrieved January 4, 2013, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aris.2010.1440440108/full
25. Kyvik, S. (2003). Changing trends in publishing behaviour among university faculty, 1980-2000. Scientometrics, 58, 35-48.
26. Levitt, J., & Thelwall, M. (2011). Variations between subjects in the extent to which the social sciences have become more interdisciplinary. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(6), 1118-1129.
27. Li, X, Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461-471.
28. Li, X, & Thelwall, M. (2012). F1000, Mendeley and Traditional Bibliometric Indicators. 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (Vol. 3, pp. 1-11).
29. Lockett, A., & McWilliams, A. (2005). The Balance of Trade Between Disciplines: Do We Effectively Manage Knowledge? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(2), 139-150.
30. Mark Ware Consulting. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community an international study. Information Services and Use - APE 2008 Academic Publishing in Europe, Quality and Publishing, 28(2), 109-112.
31. Moed, H F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation (Vol. 9). Kluwer Academic Pub.
32. Moed, H F., Linmans, J., & Nederhof, A. (2009). Options for a comprehensive database of research outputs in Social Sciences & Humanities. Retrieved January 4, 2013, from http://83.143.5.70/download/pdf/foerderung/grundlagen_dfg_foerderung/informationen_fachwissenschaften/geisteswissenschaften/annex_2_en.pdf
33. Morillo, F., Bordons, M., & Gómez, I. (2003). Interdisciplinarity in science: A tentative typology of disciplines and research areas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(13), 1237-1249.
34. Nederhof, A. J., Zwaan, R. A., Bruin, R. E., & Dekker, P. J. (1989). Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social and behavioural sciences: A comparative study. Scientometrics, 15(5-6), 423-435. doi:10.1007/BF02017063
35. Nederhof. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81-100.
36. Neeley, J. D. (1981). The management and social science literatures: An interdisciplinary cross-citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(3), 217-223.
37. Neylon, C., & Wu, S. (2009). Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS biology, 7(11), e1000242. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000242
38. Pair, C. (1980). Switching between academic disciplines in universities in the Netherlands. Scientometrics, 2(3), 177-191. Retrieved October 28, 2012, from http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/BF02016696
39. Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. M. H. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15(7). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2874
40. Priem, J., Groth, P., & Taraborelli, D. (2012). The Altmetrics Collection. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e48753. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048753
41. Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. Arxiv preprintarXiv:1203.4745. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/html/1203.4745v1
42. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2011). alt-metrics: A manifesto (v 1.01 - September 28, 2011: removed dash in alt-metrics). http://altmetrics.org/manifesto.
43. Rinia, E. (2007). Measurement and evaluation of interdisciplinary research and knowledge transfer. Universiteit Leiden, The Netherlands.
44. Rinia, A, Van Leeuwen, T. Bruins, E. Van Vuren, H., & Van Raan, A. (2002). Measuring knowledge transfer between fields of science. Scientometrics, 54(3), 347-362. Akadémiai Kiadó, co-published with Springer Science+Business Media B.V., Formerly Kluwer Academic Publishers B.V.
45. Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2005). Scholarly communication in the digital environment: The 2005 survey of journal author behaviour and attitudes. Aslib Proceedings, 57(6), 481-497. doi:10.1108/00012530510634226
46. Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2007). The missing link: journal usage metrics. Aslib Proceedings, 59(3), 222-228. doi:10.1108/00012530710752025
47. Schloegl, C., & Gorraiz, J. (2010). Comparison of citation and usage indicators: the case of oncology journals. Scientometrics, 82(3), 567-580. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0172-1
48. Schloegl, C., & Gorraiz, J. (2011). Global usage versus global citation metrics: The case of pharmacology journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 161-170.
49. Schloegl, C., & Stock, W. G. (2004). Impact and relevance of LIS journals: A scientometric analysis of international and German-language LIS journals -Citation analysis versus reader survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(13), 1155-1168. doi:10.1002/asi.20070
50. Stevens, G. (1990). An Alliance Confirmed Planning Literature and the Social Sciences. Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(3), 341-349.
51. Tang, R. (2005). Evolution of the interdisciplinary characteristics of information and library science. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 54-63.
52. Thelwall, M. (2012). Journal impact evaluation: a webometric perspective. Scientometrics, 92(2), 429-441. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0669-x
53. Urata, H. (1990). Information flows among academic disciplines in Japan. Scientometrics, 18(3-4), 309-319.
54. Zhang, L., Glänzel, W., & Liang, L. (2009). Tracing the role of individual journals in a cross-citation network based on different indicators. Scientometrics, 81(3), 821-838. doi:10.1007/s11192-008-2245-y