Normalization of Mendeley reader counts for impact assessment

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 62-73

  Haunschild, Robin ^a   Bornmann, Lutz ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUT FÜR FESTKÖRPERFORSCHUNG   (Germany)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Altmetrics; Mendeley; Normalization; Reader impact

Indexed keywords

ALTMETRICS; CITATION SCORE; IMPACT ASSESSMENTS; MENDELEY; NORMALIZATION; READER IMPACT; UNIVERSITY LEVELS; WEB OF SCIENCE;

PUBLISHING;

EID: 84954151612     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: 18755879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.003     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Aguinis H., Shapiro D.L., Antonacopoulou E.P., Cummings T.G. Scholarly impact: A pluralist conceptualization. Academy of Management Learning & Education 2014, 13(4):623-639. 10.5465/amle.2014.0121.
2. Albarran P., Crespo J.A., Ortuno I., Ruiz-Castillo J. The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates. Scientometrics 2011, 88(2):385-397. 10.1007/s11192-011-0407-9.
3. Bar-Ilan J., Haustein S., Peters I., Priem J., Shema H., Terliesner J. Beyond citations: Scholars' visibility on the social web. Paper presented at the 17th international conference on science and technology indicators 2012.
4. Bornmann L. Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8(4):895-903. 10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.005.
5. Bornmann L., Leydesdorff L., Mutz R. The use of percentiles and percentile rank classes in the analysis of bibliometric data: Opportunities and limits. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7(1):158-165.
6. Bornmann L., Marx W. Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts?. Journal of Informetrics 2015, 9(2):408-418.
7. Borrego A. Altmetrics for the research evaluation and the analysis of the needs of information. Profesional De La Informacion 2014, 23(4):352-357. 10.3145/epi.2014.jul.02.
8. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences 1988, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ, USA. 2nd ed.
9. Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy Assessing the impact of state interventions in research-techniques, issues and solutions 2014, Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation, Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy, Brussels, Belgium.
10. Dinsmore A., Allen L., Dolby K. Alternative perspectives on impact: The potential of ALMs and altmetrics to inform funders about research impact. PLoS Biology 2014, 12(11). 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002003.
11. Fairclough R., Thelwall M. National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers. Journal of Informetrics 2015, 9(4):845-859.
12. Hammarfelt B. Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics 2014, 101(2):1419-1430. 10.1007/s11192-014-1261-3.
13. Harzing A.-W. Document categories in the ISI web of knowledge: Misunderstanding the social sciences?. Scientometrics 2013, 94(1):23-34. 10.1007/s11192-012-0738-1.
14. Haunschild, R., & Bornmann, L. (under review). The proposal of using scaling for calculating field-normalized citation scores. Retrieved July 29, 2015, from http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1496560.
15. Haunschild R., Bornmann L. Normalization of Mendeley reader counts for impact assessment. Figshare 2015, 10.6084/m9.figshare.1334243.
16. Haunschild R., Bornmann L., Leydesdorff L. Networks of reader and country status: An analysis of Mendeley reader statistics. PeerJ Computer Science 2015, 1:e32. 10.7717/peerj-cs.32.
17. Haustein S., Costas R., Lariviere V. Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS ONE 2015, 10(3). 10.1371/journal.pone.0120495.
18. Haustein S., Lariviere V. A multidimensional analysis of Aslib proceedings - using everything but the impact factor. Aslib Journal of Information Management 2014, 66(4):358-380. 10.1108/ajim-11-2013-0127.
19. Herranz N., Ruiz-Castillo J. Multiplicative and fractional strategies when journals are assigned to several subfields. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012, 63(11):2195-2205. 10.1002/asi.22629.
20. Jeng W., He D.Q., Jiang J.P. User participation in an academic social networking service: A survey of open group users on Mendeley. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2015, 66(5):890-904. 10.1002/asi.23225.
21. Kraemer H.C., Morgan G.A., Leech N.L., Gliner J.A., Vaske J.J., Harmon R.J. Measures of clinical significance. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2003, 42(12):1524-1529. 10.1097/01.chi.0000091507.46853.d1.
22. Moed H.F. Citation analysis in research evaluation 2005, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
23. Mohammadi E., Thelwall M. Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65(8):1627-1638. 10.1002/asi.23071.
24. 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.
25. Priem J. Scholarship: Beyond the paper. Nature 2013, 495(7442):437-440.
26. Priem J. Altmetrics. Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multi-dimensional indicators of performance 2014, 263-287. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. B. Cronin, C.R. Sugimoto (Eds.).
27. Priem J., Taraborelli D., Groth P., Neylon C. Altmetrics: A manifesto 2010, Retrieved from Retrieved 28 March 2015, from 〈http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/〉.
28. Rodgers E.P., Barbrow S. A look at altmetrics and its growing significance to research libraries 2013, The University of Michigan University Library, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
29. Rodriguez-Navarro A. A simple index for the high-citation tail of citation distribution to quantify research performance in countries and institutions. PLoS ONE 2011, 6(5). 10.1371/journal.pone.0020510.
30. Schubert A., Braun T. Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics 1986, 9(5-6):281-291.
31. SCImago Reseach Group SIR world rReport 2013 2013, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
32. Seglen P.O. The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1992, 43(9):628-638. 10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199210)43:9<628::aid-asi5>3.0.co;2-0.
33. Thelwall M., Maflahi N. Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? An analysis of Mendeley readers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2015, 66(6):1124-1135. 10.1002/asi.23252.
34. Torres-Salinas D., Cabezas-Clavijo A., Jimenez-Contreras E. Altmetrics: New indicators for scientific communication in Web 2.0. Comunicar 2013, (41):53-60. 10.3916/c41-2013-05.
35. van Raan A.F.J. Measurement of central aspects of scientific research: Performance, interdisciplinarity, structure. Measurement 2005, 3(1):19.
36. Waltman L., van Eck J.N. Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method. Journal of Informetrics 2015, 9(4):872-894. 10.1016/j.joi.2015.08.001.
37. Waltman L., van Eck N.J., van Leeuwen T., Visser M., van Raan A. Towards a new crown indicator: An empirical analysis. Scientometrics 2011, 87(3):467-481. 10.1007/s11192-011-0354-5.
38. Waltman L., van Eck N.J., van Leeuwen T.N., Visser M.S., van Raan A.F.J. Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5(1):37-47. 10.1016/j.joi.2010.08.001.
39. Wilsdon J., Allen L., Belfiore E., Campbell P., Curry S., Hill S., et al. The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management 2015, 10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363.
40. Zahedi Z., Costas R., Wouters P. Assessing the impact of publications saved by Mendeley users: Is there any different pattern among users?. Proceedings of the IATUL conferences. Paper 4 2014, Retrieved September 10, 2014, from 〈http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/2014/altmetrics/4〉.
41. Zahedi Z., van Eck N.J. Visualizing readership activity of Mendeley users using VOSviewer 2014, Retrieved July 8, 2014, from 〈http://figshare.com/articles/Visualizing_readership_activity_of_Mendeley_users_using_VOSviewer/1041819〉.
42. 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. 10.1002/asi.20880.