Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 65, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 1627-1638

  Mohammadi, Ehsan ^a   Thelwall, Mike ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT;

CITATION ANALYSIS; CROSS-DISCIPLINARY; INFORMATION FLOWS; KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER; RESEARCH EVALUATION; RESEARCH IMPACTS; SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE; SCIENTIFIC FIELDS;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

EID: 84903957688     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23071     Document Type: Article

References (56)

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), 1407-1417.
2. Bar-Ilan, J. (2012). JASIST 2001-2010. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 36 (6), 24-28.
3. Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012, September). Beyond citations: Scholars' visibility on the social web. Paper presented at the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
4. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed). Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
5. Blecic, D.D. (1999). Measurements of journal use: An analysis of the correlations between three methods. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 87 (1), 20-25.
6. Bollen, J., Van De Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., & Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS ONE, 4 (6), e6022.
7. 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.
8. Bordons, M., Morillo, F., & Gómez, I. (2005). Analysis of crossdisciplinary research through bibliometric tools. In H.F. Moed (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 437-456). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
9. Borrego, A., & Fry, J. (2012). Measuring researchers' use of scholarly information through social bookmarking data: A case study of Bib-Sonomy. Journal of Information Science, 38 (3), 297-308.
10. 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. (Pubitemid 43989212)
11. 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.
12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Vol. 2, p. 567). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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), 551-64. (Pubitemid 351310577)
14. Cronin, B., & Pearson, S. (1990). The export of ideas from information science. Journal of Information Science, 16 (6), 381-391.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Garfield, E. (2011, May). Full text downloads and citations: Some reflections. Paper presented at the Scientific Measurement and Mapping Seminar, Santa Fe, NM.
18. Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2010, September). The historical evolution of interdisciplinarity: 1900-2008. Paper presented at the Eleventh International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Leiden, The Netherlands.
19. Goldstone, R.L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The import and export of cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 30 (6), 983-993.
20. Hahn, K., & Faulkner, L. (2002). Evaluative usage-based metrics for the selection of e-journals. College & Research Libraries, 63 (3), 215-227.
21. Haque, A., & Ginsparg, P. (2009). Positional effects on citation and readership in arXiv. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (11), 2203-2218.
22. Haustein, S., & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics, 5 (3), 446-457.
23. 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.
24. Jiang, J., He, D., & Ni, C. (2011). Social reference: Aggregating online usage of scientific literature in CiteULike for clustering academic resources. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2011) (Vol. 11, pp. 401-402). New York, NY: ACM Press.
25. Kraker, P., Körner, C., Jack, K., & Granitzer, M. (2012). Harnessing user library statistics for research evaluation and knowledge domain visualization. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference Companion on World Wide Web (pp. 1017-1024). New York, NY: ACM Press.
26. Kurtz, M., & Bollen, J. (2010). Usage bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44 (1), 1-64.
27. Kurtz, M.J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C., Demleitner, M., Murray, S.S., Elwell, B. (2005). The bibliometric properties of article readership information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56 (2), 111-128. (Pubitemid 40136259)
28. Kyvik, S. (2003). Changing trends in publishing behaviour among university faculty, 1980-2000. Scientometrics, 58, 35-48.
29. 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, 1118-1129.
30. Leydesdorff, L., Carley, S., & Rafols, I. (2013). Global maps of science based on the new Web-of-Science categories. Scientometrics, 94 (2), 589-593.
31. Li, X., & Thelwall, M. (2012). F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (Vol. 3, pp. 1-11). Montral, Quebec, Canada: Science-Metrix and OST. Retrieved from http://sticonference.org/Proceedings/ vol2/Li-F1000-541.pdf
32. Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91 (2), 461-471.
33. Lockett, A., & McWilliams, A. (2005). The balance of trade between disciplines: Do we effectively manage knowledge? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14 (2), 139-150.
34. Moed, H.F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation (Vol. 9). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
35. Moed, H.F., Linmans, J., Nederhof, A., Zuccala, A., Illescas, C.L., & de Moya Anegón, F. (2009). Options for a comprehensive database of research outputs in social sciences & humanities. Research report to the Project Board of the Scoping Study "Towards a Bibliometric Database for the Social Sciences and the Humanities." Strasbourg, France: European Science Foundation.
36. 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.
37. Nederhof, A.J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66 (1), 81-100.
38. 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.
39. Neylon, C., & Wu, S. (2009). Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biology, 7 (11), e1000242.
40. Pair, C. (1980). Switching between academic disciplines in universities in The Netherlands. Scientometrics, 2 (3), 177-191.
41. Pierce, S.J. (1999). Boundary crossing in research literatures as a means of interdisciplinary information transfer. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50 (3), 271-279.
42. Priem, J., & Hemminger, B.M.H. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social web. First Monday, 15 (7).
43. Priem, J., Piwowar, H.A., & Hemminger, B.M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. Arxiv preprint arXiv:1203.4745.
44. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2011). Alt-metrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto
45. Rinia, E. (2007). Measurement and evaluation of interdisciplinary research and knowledge transfer. Leiden, The Netherlands: Universiteit Leiden.
46. Rinia, E.J., Van Leeuwen, T.N., Bruins, E.E.W., Van Vuren, H.G., & Van Raan, A.F.J. (2001). Citation delay in interdisciplinary knowledge exchange. Scientometrics, 51 (1), 293-309. (Pubitemid 33690691)
47. Rinia, E.J., Van Leeuwen, T., Bruins, E., Van Vuren, H., & Van Raan, A. (2002). Measuring knowledge transfer between fields of science. Scientometrics, 54 (3), 347-362.
48. 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.
49. Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2007). The missing link: journal usage metrics. Aslib Proceedings, 59 (3), 222-228.
50. Schloegl, C., & Gorraiz, J. (2010). Comparison of citation and usage indicators: The case of oncology journals. Scientometrics, 82 (3), 567-580.
51. 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 (2005), 161-170.
52. 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.
53. Stevens, G. (1990). An alliance confirmed planning literature and the social sciences. Journal of the American Planning Association, 56 (3), 341-349.
54. 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.
55. Thelwall, M. (2012). Journal impact evaluation: A webometric perspective. Scientometrics, 92 (2), 429-441.
56. Urata, H. (1990). Information flows among academic disciplines in Japan. Scientometrics, 18 (3-4), 309-319.