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

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/2436/620075
Title:
When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals
Authors:
Thelwall, Mike ( 0000-0001-6065-205X ) ; Maflahi, Nabeil
Abstract:
In theory, articles can attract readers on the social reference sharing site Mendeley before they can attract citations, so Mendeley altmetrics could provide early indications of article impact. This article investigates the influence of time on the number of Mendeley readers of an article through a theoretical discussion and an investigation into the relationship between counts of readers of, and citations to, 4 general library and information science (LIS) journals. For this discipline, it takes about 7 years for articles to attract as many Scopus citations as Mendeley readers, and after this the Spearman correlation between readers and citers is stable at about 0.6 for all years. This suggests that Mendeley readership counts may be useful impact indicators for both newer and older articles. The lack of dates for individual Mendeley article readers and an unknown bias toward more recent articles mean that readership data should be normalized individually by year, however, before making any comparisons between articles published in different years.
Publisher:
Wiley-Blackwell
Journal:
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
Issue Date:
Jun-2014
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/2436/620075
Additional Links:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23369/abstract
Type:
Article
Language:
en
Description:
Maflahi, N. & Thelwall, M. (2016). When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(1), 191-199. [Based upon four key LIS journals, Mendeley reader counts are reasonable proxies for citation counts for articles that are 1-10 years old.]
ISSN:
2330-1635
Appears in Collections:
Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorThelwall, Mikeen
dc.contributor.authorMaflahi, Nabeilen
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-13T09:18:21Z-
dc.date.available2016-09-13T09:18:21Z-
dc.date.issued2014-06-
dc.identifier.issn2330-1635-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2436/620075-
dc.descriptionMaflahi, N. & Thelwall, M. (2016). When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(1), 191-199. [Based upon four key LIS journals, Mendeley reader counts are reasonable proxies for citation counts for articles that are 1-10 years old.]en
dc.description.abstractIn theory, articles can attract readers on the social reference sharing site Mendeley before they can attract citations, so Mendeley altmetrics could provide early indications of article impact. This article investigates the influence of time on the number of Mendeley readers of an article through a theoretical discussion and an investigation into the relationship between counts of readers of, and citations to, 4 general library and information science (LIS) journals. For this discipline, it takes about 7 years for articles to attract as many Scopus citations as Mendeley readers, and after this the Spearman correlation between readers and citers is stable at about 0.6 for all years. This suggests that Mendeley readership counts may be useful impact indicators for both newer and older articles. The lack of dates for individual Mendeley article readers and an unknown bias toward more recent articles mean that readership data should be normalized individually by year, however, before making any comparisons between articles published in different years.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwellen
dc.relation.urlhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23369/abstracten
dc.subjectaltmetricsen
dc.subjectMendeleyen
dc.subjectcitation analysisen
dc.subjectalternative indicatorsen
dc.titleWhen are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journalsen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.journalJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technologyen
All Items in WIRE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.