Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 67, Issue 12, 2016, Pages 3036-3050

  Thelwall, Mike ^a   Sud, Pardeep ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

bibliometrics

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOMETRICS; CITATION COUNTS; COUNTS-AS; IMPACT INDICATORS; SUBFIELDS; TIME-PERIODS;

AGRICULTURE; BIBLIOMETRICS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; PHARMACY; PUBLICATION; SOCIOLOGY;

EID: 84995473157     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23559     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D'Angelo, C.A. (2012). A sensitivity analysis of research institutions’ productivity rankings to the time of citation observation. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 298–306.
2. Adam, D. (2002). Citation analysis: The counting house. Nature, 415(6873), 726–729.
3. Adams, J. (2005). Early citation counts correlate with accumulated impact. Scientometrics, 63(3), 567–581.
4. Adie, E., & Roe, W. (2013). Altmetric: Enriching scholarly content with article-level discussion and metrics. Learned Publishing, 26(1), 11–17.
5. Alperin, J.P. (2014). Exploring altmetrics in an emerging country context. Figshare. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1041797
6. Bar-Ilan, J. (2014). JASIST@Mendeley Revisited. fig. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1031681
7. Bordons, M., Fernández, M.T., & Gomez, I. (2002). Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance. Scientometrics, 53(2), 195–206.
8. Braam, R.R., Moed, H.F., & van Raan, A.F. (1991). Mapping of science by combined co-citation and word analysis, I. Structural aspects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(4), 233–251.
9. Brouwer, E., & Kleinknecht, A. (1999). Innovative output, and a firm's propensity to patent: An exploration of CIS micro data. Research Policy, 28(6), 615–624.
10. 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.
11. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2014a). Do altmetrics correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective.
12. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2014b). Disentangling the meaning of “altmetrics”: content analysis of Web of Science scientific publications. Figshare. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1041770
13. Coupe, T. (2003). Science is golden: Academic R&D and university patents. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 31–46.
14. Cronin, B., Snyder, H.W., Rosenbaum, H., Martinson, A., & Callahan, E. (1998). Invoked on the web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(14), 1319–1328.
15. Desai, T., Shariff, A., Shariff, A., Kats, M., Fang, X., Christiano, C., & Ferris, M. (2012). Tweeting the meeting: An in-depth analysis of Twitter activity at Kidney Week 2011. PLoS ONE, 7(7), e40253.
16. 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 & Management, 11(1), 11–27.
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).
18. Hammarfelt, B. (2014). Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1419–1430.
19. Haslam, N., & Koval, P. (2010). Possible research area bias in the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) draft journal rankings. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62(2), 112–114.
20. Haustein, S., & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 446–457.
21. 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. Advance online publication. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.4139
22. Haustein, S., Larivière, V., Thelwall, M., Amyot, D., & Peters, I. (2014). Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ. IT—Information Technology, 56(5), 207–215.
23. 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, 101(2), 1145–1163.
24. Henning, V., & Reichelt, J. (2008). Mendeley—A Last.fm for research? In IEEE Fourth International Conference on eScience (eScience'08) (pp. 327–328). Menlo Park: IEEE.
25. HEFCE (2013). Citation data: REF 2014. Retrieved from http://www.ref.ac.uk/subguide/citationdata/
26. Ingwersen, P. (1998). The calculation of web impact factors. Journal of Documentation, 54(2), 236–243.
27. Jimenez-Contreras, E., Robinson-Garcia, N., & Cabezas-Clavijo, A. (2011). Productivity and impact of Spanish researchers: Reference thresholds within scientific areas. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 34(4), 505–525. Retrieved from http://eprints.rclis.org/16784/1/Productivity%20and%20impact%20of%20Spanish%20researchers.pdf
28. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2006). Motivations for URL citations to open access library and information science articles. Scientometrics, 68(3), 501–517.
29. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Assessing the impact of disciplinary research on teaching: An automatic analysis of online syllabuses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology: JASIST, 59(13), 2060–2069.
30. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (in press). Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Advance online publication.
31. Kwok, J.T. (2013). Impact of ERA research assessment on university behaviour and their staff. Retrieved from http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/nteu_impactofera_april2013.pdf
32. Labrosse, L., Ventimiglia, A., Campbell, D., Haustein, S., Côté, G., & Archambault, É. (2013). Scientific Output and Collaboration of European Universities, EC Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/scientific_output_collaboration_european_univ.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none
33. Larivière, V., Archambault, É., & Gingras, Y. (2008). 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, 59(2), 288–296.
34. Levitt, J.M., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Patterns of annual citation of highly cited articles and the prediction of their citation ranking: A comparison across subjects. Scientometrics, 77(1), 41–60.
35. Levitt, J.M., & Thelwall, M. (2011). A combined bibliometric indicator to predict article impact. Information Processing & Management, 47(2), 300–308.
36. 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.
37. Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461–471.
38. MacRoberts, M.H., & MacRoberts, B.R. (1989). Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(5), 342–349.
39. Maflahi, N., & Thelwall, M. (in press). When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Advance online publication.
40. Mas-Bleda, A., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., & Aguillo, I.F. (2014). Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web? Scientometrics, 101(1), 337–356.
41. Meyer, M. (2000). What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics, 49(1), 93–123.
42. 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.
43. Moed, H.F. (2006). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Berlin: Springer.
44. 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.
45. 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. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1002/asi.23477.
46. Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (in press). Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Advance online publication.
47. Parker, J., & van Teijlingen, E. (2012). The Research Excellence Framework (REF): Assessing the impact of social work research on society. Practice, 24(1), 41–52.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org
51. Richardson, M. (2011). The value of bibliometrics. The Research Excellence Framework: Revisiting the RAE. Research Trends, 22. Retrieved from http://www.researchtrends.com/issue22-march-2011/the-research-excellence-framework-revisiting-the-rae-2/
52. Sainty, M. (2013). Research impact: A United Kingdom Occupational Therapy Research Foundation perspective. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 76(12), 528–537.
53. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2012). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e35869.
54. 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, 65(5), 1018–1027.
55. Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131–1143.
56. Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (in press). Not all international collaboration is beneficial: The Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Advance online publication.
57. Taraborelli, D. (2008). Soft peer review: Social software and distributed scientific evaluation. In P. Hassanaly, A. Ramrajsingh, D. Randall, P. Salembier, & M. Tixier (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (pp. 99–110). Aix-en-Provence, France: Institut d'Etudes Politiques d'Aix-en-Provence.
58. TEC (2014). Performance-Based Research Fund. Sector Reference Group—Consultation Paper #1: Approach to the design of the 2018 Quality Evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.tec.govt.nz/Documents/Reports%20and%20other%20documents/PBRF-2018-QE-design.pdf
59. Thelwall, M., & Maflahi, N. (in press). Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? An analysis of Mendeley readers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
60. Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (in press). Does research with statistics have more impact? The citation rank advantage of structural equation modelling. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Advance online publication.
61. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C.R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64841.
62. Thelwall, M., Tsou, A., Weingart, S., Holmberg, K., & Haustein, S. (2013). Tweeting links to academic articles. Cybermetrics, 17(1). Retrieved from http://cybermetrics.cindoc.csic.es/articles/v17i1p1.html
63. Tijssen, R.J. (2001). Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: Patent citation analysis of science–technology interactions and knowledge flows. Research Policy, 30(1), 35–54.
64. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 21(1), 172–187.
65. Vaughan, L., & Hysen, K. (2002). Relationship between links to journal Web sites and impact factors. Aslib Proceedings, 54(6), 356–361.
66. Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2003). Bibliographic and web citations: What is the difference? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(14), 1313–1322.
67. Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2005). Web citation data for impact assessment: A comparison of four science disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(10), 1075–1087.
68. Wang, J. (2013). Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics, 94(3), 851–872.
69. Weller, K., & Puschmann, C. (2011). Twitter for scientific communication: How can citations/references be identified and measured. Proceedings of the ACM WebSci, 11, 1–4.
70. Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control: Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. In E. Archambault, Y. Gingras, & V. Larivière (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (Vol. 2, pp. 487–497). Montréal: Science-Metrix and OST.
71. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014). How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of “alternative metrics” in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1491–1513.
72. Zahedi, Z., Haustein, S., & Bowman, T. (2014). Exploring data quality and retrieval strategies for Mendeley reader counts. Presentation at SIGMET Metrics 2014 workshop. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/StefanieHaustein/sigme-tworkshop-asist2014