When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 67, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 191-199

  Maflahi, Nabeil ^a   Thelwall, Mike ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

bibliometrics

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOMETRICS; CITATION COUNTS; COUNTS-AS; IMPACT INDICATORS; LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE; READERSHIP DATA; SPEARMAN CORRELATION;

BIBLIOMETRICS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION SCIENCE; SCOPUS; THEORETICAL MODEL;

EID: 84975075026     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23369     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Abrizah, A., Zainab, A.N., Kiran, K., & Raj, R.G. (2013). LIS journals scientific impact and subject categorization: A comparison between Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics, 94(2), 721–740.
2. ACUMEN (2014). Guidelines for good evaluation practice with the ACUMEN Portfolio. Retrieved from http://research-acumen.eu/wp-content/uploads/Guidelines-Portfolio-TOC-document.v13dx.pdf
3. Adie, E., & Roe, W. (2013). Altmetric: Enriching scholarly content with article-level discussion and metrics. Learned Publishing, 26(1), 11–17.
4. Allen, H.G., Stanton, T.R., Di Pietro, F., & Moseley, G.L. (2013). Social media release increases dissemination of original articles in the clinical pain sciences. PLOS ONE, 8(7), e68914.
5. Alperin, J.P. (2013). Ask not what altmetrics can do for you, but what altmetrics can do for developing countries. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(4), 18–21.
6. Amin, M., & Mabe, M. (2000). Impact factors: Use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing, 1(2), 1–6.
7. Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars' visibility on the social Web. In É. Archambault, Y. Gingras, & V. Larivière (Eds.), Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 98–109). Montréal: Science-Metrix and OST.
8. Barr, D. (2006). Staying alert: The wild new world of current awareness services. College and Research Libraries News, 67(1), 14–17.
9. Beall, J. (2012). Article-level metrics: An ill-conceived and meretricious idea. Retrieved from http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/08/01/article-level-metrics/
10. Björk, B.C., & Solomon, D. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 914–923.
11. Breese, J.S., Heckerman, D., & Kadie, C. (1998). Empirical analysis of predictive algorithms for collaborative filtering. In G. Cooper & S. Moral (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence (pp. 43–52). Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
12. Brewerton, G. (2014). Implications of student and lecturer qualitative views on reading lists: A case study at Loughborough University, UK. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 20(1), 78–90.
13. Case, D.O., & Higgins, G.M. (2000). How can we investigate citation behavior? A study of reasons for citing literature in communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(7), 635–645.
14. Colquhoun, D., & Plested, A. (2014). Scientists don't count: Why you should ignore altmetrics and other bibliometric nightmares. Retrieved from http://www.dcscience.net/?p=6369
15. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2014). Do altmetrics correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:1401.4321.
16. de Solla Price, D. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(5), 292–306.
17. Erfanmanesh, M.A., & Didegah, F. (2013). A comparison of Web of Science and Scopus for Iranian publications and citation impact. International Journal of Information Science and Management, 11(1), 11–27.
18. 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.
19. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C.R., Thelwall, M., & Larivière, V. (2014). Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 656–669.
20. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2014). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics, in press.
21. Holmberg, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics, in press.
22. Levitt, J., & Thelwall, M. (2011). A combined bibliometric indicator to predict article impact. Information Processing and Management, 47(2), 300–308.
23. Li, J., Burnham, J.F., Lemley, T., & Britton, R.M. (2010). Citation analysis: Comparison of Web of science, Scopus, SciFinder, and Google scholar. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 7(3), 196–217.
24. Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461–471.
25. Lin, J., & Fenner, M. (2013). Altmetrics in evolution: Defining & redefining the ontology of article-level metrics. Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2), 20.
26. Line, M.B., & Sandison, A. (1974). Progress in documentation: “Obsolescence”and changes in the use of literature with time. Journal of Documentation, 30(3), 283–350.
27. Mas-Bleda, A., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., & Aguillo, I.F. (2014). Do highly cited researchers successfully use the Social Web? Scientometrics, in press.
28. Minasny, B., Hartemink, A.E., McBratney, A., & Jang, H.J. (2013). Citations and the h index of soil researchers and journals in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. PeerJ, 1, e183.
29. Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(8), 1627–1638.
30. Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2014). Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, in press.
31. Niu, X., Hemminger, B.M., Lown, C., Adams, S., Brown, C., Level, A., … Cataldo, T. (2010). National study of information seeking behavior of academic researchers in the United States. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(5), 869–890.
32. Palmer, J. (1991). Scientists and information: Using cluster analysis to identify information style. Journal of Documentation, 47(2), 105–129.
33. Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLOS Computational Biology, 9(7), e1003149.
34. Peters, I., Beutelspacher, L., Maghferat, P., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Scientific bloggers under the altmetric microscope. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 49. Retrieved from http://www.asis.org/asist2012/proceedings/Submissions/305.pdf
35. Piwowar, H., & Priem, J. (2013). The power of altmetrics on a CV. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(4), 10–13.
36. Priem, J., & Costello, K.L. (2010). How and why scholars cite on Twitter. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), 1–4.
37. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/
38. Roemer, R.C., & Borchardt, R. (2013). Institutional altmetrics and academic libraries. Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2), 14–19.
39. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2014). 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, in press.
40. Shuai, X., Pepe, A., & Bollen, J. (2012). How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: Article downloads, twitter mentions, and citations. PLOS ONE, 7(11), e47523.
41. Stokes, P., & Martin, L. (2008). Reading lists: A study of tutor and student perceptions, expectations and realities. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2), 113–125.
42. Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131–1143.
43. Sulaiman, M., Ahmad, N.N.N., & Alwi, N.M. (2005). Is standard costing obsolete? Empirical evidence from Malaysia. Managerial Auditing Journal, 20(2), 109–124.
44. Talja, S., Vakkari, P., Fry, J., & Wouters, P. (2007). Impact of research cultures on the use of digital library resources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(11), 1674–1685.
45. Tenopir, C., King, D.W., Edwards, S., & Wu, L. (2009). Electronic journals and changes in scholarly article seeking and reading patterns. Aslib Proceedings, 61(1), 5–32.
46. Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., & King, D.W. (2012). Article and book reading patterns of scholars: Findings for publishers. Learned Publishing, 25(4), 279–291.
47. Thelwall, M., & Maflahi, N. (2014). Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? An analysis of Mendeley readers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, in press.
48. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. (2013a). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other candidates. PLOS ONE, 8(5), e64841. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064841
49. Thelwall, M., Tsou, A., Weingart, S., Holmberg, K., & Haustein, S. (2013b). Tweeting links to academic articles. Cybermetrics: International Journal of Scientometrics, Informetrics and Bibliometrics, 17(1), paper 1.
50. Vakkari, P., & Talja, S. (2006). Searching for electronic journal articles to support academic tasks. A case study of the use of the Finnish National Electronic Library (FinELib). Information Research, 12(1). Retrieved from http://www.informationr.net/ir/12-1/paper285.html
51. van Raan, A.F. (2004). Sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics, 59(3), 467–472.
52. Waltman, L., & Costas, R. (2013). F1000 recommendations as a new data source for research evaluation: A comparison with citations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1303.3875.
53. Weller, K., Dröge, E., & Puschmann, C. (2011). Citation analysis in Twitter: Approaches for defining and measuring information flows within tweets during scientific conferences. In M. Rowe, M. Stankovic, A. Dadzie, & M. Hardey (Eds.), Proceedings of Making Sense of Microposts Workshop (MSM2011) (pp. 1–12). Retrieved from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-718/paper_04.pdf
54. Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2014). Users, narcissism and control—Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Retrieved from http://research-acumen.eu/wp-content/uploads/Users-narcissism-and-control.pdf
55. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2013). What is the impact of the publications read by the different Mendeley users? Could they help to identify alternative types of impact? Retrieved from https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/23579 (abstract) and https://www.academia.edu/6670997/What_is_the_impact_of_the_publications_read_by_the_different_Mendeley_users_Could_they_help_to_identify_alternative_types_of_impact (slides).
56. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014). How well developed are Altmetrics? Cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of “alternative metrics” in scientific publications. Scientometrics, in press.