National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 845-859

  Fairclough, Ruth ^a   Thelwall, Mike ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Citation analysis; Research evaluation; Scientometrics

Indexed keywords

CITATION ANALYSIS; DATA-SOURCES; POLICY CHANGES; RESEARCH EVALUATION; RESEARCH IMPACTS; RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; SCIENTOMETRICS; TIME-PERIODS;

EID: 84941195020     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: 18755879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.08.003     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Abramo, G., & D'Angelo, C.A. (in press). The VQR, Italy's second national research assessment: Methodological failures and ranking distortions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
2. Adams J., King C. Russia: Research collaboration and the new geography of science 2010, Thomson Reuters, http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/grr-russia-jan10.pdf.
3. Adams J. Early citation counts correlate with accumulated impact. Scientometrics 2005, 63(3):567-581.
4. Adie E., Roe W. Altmetric: Enriching scholarly content with article-level discussion and metrics. Learned Publishing 2013, 26(1):11-17.
5. Aghaei Chadegani A., Salehi H., Yunus M.M., Farhadi H., Fooladi M., Farhadi M., et al. A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Social Science 2013, 9(5):18-26.
6. Aksnes D.W., Schneider J.W., Gunnarsson M. Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6(1):36-43.
7. Albarillo F. Language in social science databases: English versus non-english articles in JSTOR and Scopus. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian 2014, 33(2):77-90.
8. Albarrán P., Crespo J.A., Ortuño I., Ruiz-Castillo J. A comparison of the scientific performance of the U.S. and the European Union at the turn of the 21st century. Scientometrics 2010, 85(1):329-344.
9. Archambault É., Vignola-Gagne É., Côté G., Larivière V., Gingrasb Y. Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics 2006, 68(3):329-342.
10. Braam R.R., Moed H.F., van Raan A.F. Mapping of science by combined cocitation and word analysis, I. Structural aspects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1991, 42(4):233-251.
11. Chubin D.E., Moitra S.D. Content analysis of references: Adjunct or alternative to citation counting?. Social Studies of Science 1975, 5(4):423-441.
12. Costas R., Zahedi Z., Wouters P. Do altmetrics correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective 2014, ar Xiv preprint ar Xiv:1401.4321.
13. Cronin B., Snyder H.W., Rosenbaum H., Martinson A., Callahan E. Invoked on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1998, 49(14):1319-1328.
14. Davis P.M., Cochran A. Cited half-life of the journal literature 2015, ar Xiv preprint ar Xiv:1504.07479.
15. Elsevier International comparative performance of the UK research base-2013 2013, 〈https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/performance-of-the-uk-research-base-international-comparison-2013.
16. Engers M., Gans J.S., Grant S., King S.P. First-author conditions. Journal of Political Economy 1999, 107(4):859-883.
17. Erfanmanesh M.A., Didegah F. A comparison of Web of Science and Scopus for Iranian publications and citation impact. International Journal of Information Science & Management 2013, 11(1):11-27.
18. Eysenbach G. Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2011, 13(4). http://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e123/.
19. Glänzel W., Schoepflin U. A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. Information Processing & Management 1999, 35(1):31-44.
20. Goodrum A.A., McCain K.W., Lawrence S., Giles C.L. Scholarly publishing in the Internet age: A citation analysis of computer science literature. Information Processing & Management 2001, 37(5):661-675.
21. Haunschild R., Bornmann L. Normalization of reader impact for Mendeley reader statistics 2015, 10.6084/m9.figshare.1334243.
22. Haustein, S., Bowman, T.D., Holmberg, K., Tsou, A., Sugimoto, C.R., & Larivière, V. (in press). Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated bot accounts on Twitter. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.4139.
23. Haustein S., Larivière V., Thelwall M., Amyot D., Peters I. Tweets vs Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ?. IT-Information Technology 2014, 56(5):207-215.
24. Huang M.H., Lin C.S., Chen D.Z. Counting methods, country rank changes, and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2011, 62(12):2427-2436.
25. Ingwersen P. The calculation of web impact factors. Journal of Documentation 1998, 54(2):236-243.
26. Kousha, K. & Thelwall, M. (in press). An automatic method for assessing the teaching impact of books from online academic syllabi. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
27. Larivière V., Archambault É., Gingras Y. Long-term variations in the aging of scientific literature: From exponential growth to steady-state science (1900-2004). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology 2008, 59(2):288-296.
28. Levitt J.M., Thelwall M. A combined bibliometric indicator to predict article impact. Information Processing & Management 2011, 47(2):300-308.
29. Levitt J., Thelwall M. Alphabetization and the skewing of first authorship towards last names early in the alphabet. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7(3):575-582.
30. Leydesdorff L., Radicchi F., Bornmann L., Castellano C., Nooy W. Field-normalized impact factors (IFs): A comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64(11):2299-2309.
31. Li J., Burnham J.F., Lemley T., Britton R.M. Citation analysis: Comparison of Web of Science, Scopus, SciFinder, and Google Scholar. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries 2010, 7(3):196-217.
32. Li J., Qiao L., Li W., Jin Y. Chinese-language articles are not biased in citations: Evidences from Chinese-English bilingual journals in Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8(4):912-916.
33. Li X., Thelwall M., Giustini D. Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics 2012, 91(2):461-471.
34. Li X., Thelwall M. F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. 17th international conference on science and technology indicators 2012, vol. 3:1-11. Science-Metrix and OST, Montreal.
35. Lisée C., Larivière V., Archambault É. Conference proceedings as a source of scientific information: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59(11):1776-1784.
36. López-Illescas C., Moya-Anegón F., Moed H.F. Comparing bibliometric country-by-country rankings derived from the Web of Science and Scopus: The effect of poorly cited journals in oncology. Journal of Information Science 2009, 35(2):244-256.
37. MacRoberts M.H., MacRoberts B.R. Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1989, 40(5):342-349.
38. Maflahi, N. & Thelwall, M. (in press). When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus vs. Mendeley for LIS journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
39. Marusic A., Bosnjak L., Jeroncic A. A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE 2011, 6(9):e23477.
40. Mas-Bleda A., Thelwall M., Kousha K., Aguillo I.F. Do highly cited researchers successfully use the Social Web?. Scientometrics 2014, 101(1):337-356.
41. Merton R.K. The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations 1973, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
42. Meyer M. What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics 2000, 49(1):93-123.
43. Minasny B., Hartemink A.E., McBratney A., Jang H.J. Citations and the h index of soil researchers and journals in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. PeerJ 2013, 1:e183.
44. Moed H.F., Visser M.S. Appraisal of citation data sources 2008, Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Retrieved November 29, 2014, from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/indirreports/2008/missing/Appraisal%20of%20Citation%20Data%20Sources.pdf.
45. Moed H.F. Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2005, 56(10):1088-1097.
46. Mohammadi E., Thelwall M. Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65(8):1627-1638.
47. Mohammadi E., Thelwall M., Haustein S., Larivière V. Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2015, 66(9):1832-1846. 10.1002/asi.23286.
48. Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M. & Kousha, K. (in press). Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23477.
49. Oppenheim C., Renn S.P. Highly cited old papers and the reasons why they continue to be cited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1978, 29(5):225-231.
50. Priem J. Altmetrics. Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multi-dimensional indicators of performance 2014, 263-287. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. B. Cronin, C.R. Sugimoto (Eds.).
51. Roach M., Cohen W.M. Lens or prism? Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows from public research. Management Science 2013, 59(2):504-525.
52. Rogers H. FY 2015 Omnibus-Commerce, justice, science appropriations 2014, http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/cjs_press_summary.pdf.
53. Science-Metrix Analysis of bibliometric indicators for European policies 2000-2013 2015, http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/bibliometric_indicators_for_european_policies.pdf.
54. Shema H., Bar-Ilan J., Thelwall M. Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65(5):1018-1027.
55. Sud P., Thelwall M. Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics 2014, 98(2):1131-1143.
56. Thelwall M., Haustein S., Larivière V., Sugimoto C. Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other candidates. PLoS ONE 2013, 8(5):e64841. 10.1371/journal.pone.0064841.
57. Thelwall, M. & Sud, P. (in press). Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
58. Thelwall M., Tsou A., Weingart S., Holmberg K., Haustein S. Tweeting links to academic articles. Cybermetrics 2013, 17(1). http://cybermetrics.cindoc.csic.es/articles/v17i1p1.html.
59. Thelwall, M. & Wilson, P. (in press). Mendeley readership Altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23501.
60. Thelwall M., Maflahi N. Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? An analysis of Mendeley readers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2015, 66(6):1124-1135.
61. Thelwall, M. & Maflahi, N. (in press). Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
62. Torres-Salinas D., Robinson-García N., Campanario J.M., López-Cózar E.D. Coverage, field specialisation and the impact of scientific publishers indexed in the book citation index. Online Information Review 2014, 38(1):24-42.
63. Trajtenberg M. A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics 1990, 21(1):172-187.
64. Van Leeuwen T.N., Moed H.F., Tijssen R.J., Visser M.S., Van Raan A.F. Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics 2001, 51(1):335-346.
65. Van Leeuwen T.N., Moed H.F., Tijssen R.J.W., Visser M.S., Van Raan A.F. First evidence of serious language-bias in the use of citation analysis for the evaluation of national science systems. Research Evaluation 2011, 9(2):155-156.
66. van Raan A.F.J. In matters of quantitative studies of science the fault of theorists is offering too little and asking too much. Scientometrics 1998, 43(1):129-148.
67. Vaughan L., Shaw D. Bibliographic and web citations: What is the difference?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2003, 54(14):1313-1322.
68. Waltman L., Calero-Medina C., Kosten J., Noyons E., Tijssen R.J., Eck N.J., et al. The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012, 63(12):2419-2432.
69. Waltman L., van Eck N.J. Source normalized indicators of citation impact: An overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison. Scientometrics 2013, 96(3):699-716.
70. Waltman L., van Eck N.J. Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method 2015, arX iv preprint ar Xiv:1501.04431.
71. Wang J. Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics 2013, 94(3):851-872.
72. Wilsdon J., et al. The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management 2015, http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/Year/2015/metrictide/Title, 104463,en.html.
73. Wouters P., Costas R. Users, narcissism and control: Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Proceedings of the 17th international conference on science and technology indicators 2012, 2:487-497. Science-Metrix and OST, Montreal.
74. Zahedi Z., Costas R., Wouters P. How well developed are altmetrics? A crossdisciplinary analysis of the presence of 'alternative metrics' in scientific publications. Scientometrics 2014, 101(2):1491-1513.
75. Zahedi Z., Haustein S., Bowman T. Exploring data quality and retrieval strategies for Mendeley reader counts. Presentation at SIGMET Metrics 2014 workshop 2014, http://www.slideshare.net/StefanieHaustein/sigme-tworkshopasist2014.
76. Zheng J., Zhao Z., Zhang X., Huang M.H., Chen D.Z. Influences of counting methods on country rankings: A perspective from patent analysis. Scientometrics 2014, 98(3):2087-2102.
77. Zitt M., Ramanana-Rahary S., Bassecoulard E. Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation. Scientometrics 2005, 63(2):373-401.
78. Zitt M., Small H. Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59(11):1856-1860.