Why do papers have many Mendeley readers but few Scopus-indexed citations and vice versa?

Journal of Librarianship and Information Science

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 144-151

  Thelwall, Mike ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Altmetrics; citation analysis; Mendeley

Indexed keywords

EID: 85020476925     PISSN: 09610006     EISSN: 17416477     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0961000615594867     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Bar-Ilan J, (2008) Which h-index? – A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 74(2): 257–271.
2. Bar-Ilan J, (2012) JASIST@ Mendeley. Presented at ACM web science conference workshop on altmetrics, Evanston, IL, USA, 21 June 2012. Available at: http://altmetrics.org/altmetrics12/bar-ilan/ (accessed 27 May 2015).
3. Costas R, Zahedi Z, Wouters P, (2014) Do ‘altmetrics’ correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23309.
4. 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.
5. Gunn W, (2013) Social signals reflect academic impact: What it means when a scholar adds a paper to Mendeley. Information Standards Quarterly 25(2): 33–39.
6. Harzing A, (2014) A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics 98(1): 565–575.
7. Haustein S, Siebenlist T, (2011) Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics 5(3): 446–457.
8. Haustein S, Larivière V, Thelwall M. (2014) Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ? IT-Information Technology 56(5): 207–215.
9. Henning V, Reichelt J, (2008) Mendeley – A last.fm for research? In: IEEE fourth international conference on eScience (eScience ‘08), Indianapolis, IN, USA, 7–12 December 2008, pp. 327–328. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.
10. 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 59(13): 2060–2069.
11. Li X, Thelwall M, (2012) F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. In: 17th international conference on science and technology indicators, Montreal, Canada, 5–8 September 2012, pp. 451–551. Available at: http://2012.sticonference.org/Proceedings/vol2/Li_F1000_541.pdf (accessed 23 June 2015).
12. Li X, Thelwall M, Giustini D, (2012) Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics 91(2): 461–471.
13. Maflahi N, Thelwall M, (2015) When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus vs. Mendeley for LIS journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23369.
14. Mas-Bleda A, Thelwall M, Kousha K. (2014) Do highly cited researchers successfully use the Social Web? Scientometrics 101(1): 337–356.
15. Meyer M, (2000) What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics 49(1): 93–123.
16. Moed HF, Visser MS, (2008) Appraisal of Citation Data Sources. Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University. Available at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/indirreports/2008/missing/Appraisal%20of%20Citation%20Data%20Sources.pdf (accessed 27 May 2015).
17. Mohammadi E, Thelwall M, Kousha K, (2015a) Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23477.
18. Mohammadi E, Thelwall M, Haustein S. (2015b) Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23286.
19. Price DD, (1965) Networks of scientific papers. Science 149: 510–515.
20. Priem J, Taraborelli D, Groth P. (2011) Altmetrics: A Manifesto. Available at: http://altmetrics.org/manifesto (accessed 27 May 2015).
21. Sud P, Thelwall M. (2014) Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics 98(2): 1131–1143.
22. Thelwall M, Wilson P, (2014a) Distributions for cited articles from individual subjects and years. Journal of Informetrics 8(4): 824–839.
23. Thelwall M, Wilson P, (2014b) Regression for citation data: An evaluation of different methods. Journal of Informetrics 8(4): 963–971.
24. Thelwall M, Wilson P, (2015) 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.
25. Thelwall M, Haustein S, Larivière V. (2013) Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE 8(5): e64841.
26. Torres-Salinas D, Lopez-Cózar ED, Jiménez-Contreras E, (2009) Ranking of departments and researchers within a university using two different databases: Web of Science versus Scopus. Scientometrics 80(3): 761–774.
27. Trajtenberg M, (1990) A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. Rand Journal of Economics 21(1): 172–187.
28. Wouters P, Costas R, (2012) Users, Narcissism and Control: Tracking the Impact of Scholarly Publications in the 21st Century. Utrecht: SURF Foundation. Available at: http://www.surffoundation.nl/nl/publicaties/Documents/Users%20narcissism%20and%20control.pdf (accessed 27 May 2015).
29. 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.