5.00
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/2436/620412
Title:
Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published?
Authors:
Thelwall, Mike ( 0000-0001-6065-205X )
Abstract:
Purpose –Mendeley reader counts have been proposed as early indicators for the impact of academic publications. In response, this article assesses whether there are enough Mendeley readers for research evaluation purposes during the month when an article is first published. Design/methodology/approach – Average Mendeley reader counts were compared to average Scopus citation counts for 104520 articles from ten disciplines during the second half of 2016. Findings - Articles attracted, on average, between 0.1 and 0.8 Mendeley readers per article in the month in which they first appeared in Scopus. This is about ten times more than the average Scopus citation count. Research limitations/implications – Other subjects may use Mendeley more or less than the ten investigated here. The results are dependent on Scopus’s indexing practices, and Mendeley reader counts can be manipulated and have national and seniority biases. Practical implications – Mendeley reader counts during the month of publication are more powerful than Scopus citations for comparing the average impacts of groups of documents but are not high enough to differentiate between the impacts of typical individual articles. Originality/value - This is the first multi-disciplinary and systematic analysis of Mendeley reader counts from the publication month of an article.
Publisher:
Emerald
Journal:
Aslib Journal of Information Management
Issue Date:
May-2017
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/2436/620412
Additional Links:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journal/ajim
Type:
Article
Language:
en
ISSN:
2050-3806
Appears in Collections:
Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorThelwall, Mikeen
dc.date.accessioned2017-03-09T14:43:07Z-
dc.date.available2017-03-09T14:43:07Z-
dc.date.issued2017-05-
dc.identifier.issn2050-3806en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2436/620412-
dc.description.abstractPurpose –Mendeley reader counts have been proposed as early indicators for the impact of academic publications. In response, this article assesses whether there are enough Mendeley readers for research evaluation purposes during the month when an article is first published. Design/methodology/approach – Average Mendeley reader counts were compared to average Scopus citation counts for 104520 articles from ten disciplines during the second half of 2016. Findings - Articles attracted, on average, between 0.1 and 0.8 Mendeley readers per article in the month in which they first appeared in Scopus. This is about ten times more than the average Scopus citation count. Research limitations/implications – Other subjects may use Mendeley more or less than the ten investigated here. The results are dependent on Scopus’s indexing practices, and Mendeley reader counts can be manipulated and have national and seniority biases. Practical implications – Mendeley reader counts during the month of publication are more powerful than Scopus citations for comparing the average impacts of groups of documents but are not high enough to differentiate between the impacts of typical individual articles. Originality/value - This is the first multi-disciplinary and systematic analysis of Mendeley reader counts from the publication month of an article.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherEmeralden
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/journal/ajimen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectAltmetricsen
dc.subjectwebometricsen
dc.subjectscientometricsen
dc.subjectMendeleyen
dc.titleAre Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published?en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.journalAslib Journal of Information Managementen
dc.date.accepted2017-03-
rioxxterms.funderInternalen
rioxxterms.identifier.projectUoW090317MTen
rioxxterms.versionAMen
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/CC BY-NC-ND 4.0en
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2017-05-01en
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License
Creative Commons
All Items in WIRE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.