2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/2436/620545
Title:
Why do papers have many Mendeley readers but few Scopus-indexed citations and vice versa?
Authors:
Thelwall, Mike ( 0000-0001-6065-205X )
Abstract:
Counts of citations to academic articles are widely used as indicators of their scholarly impact. In addition, alternative indicators derived from social websites have been proposed to cover some of the shortcomings of citation counts. The most promising such indicator is counts of readers of an article in the social reference sharing site Mendeley. Although Mendeley reader counts tend to correlate strongly and positively with citation counts within scientific fields, an understanding of causes of citation-reader anomalies is needed before Mendeley reader counts can be used with confidence as indicators. In response, this article proposes a list reasons for anomalies based upon an analysis of articles that are highly cited but have few Mendeley readers, or vice versa. The results show that there are both technical and legitimate reasons for differences, with the latter including communities that use research but do not cite it in Scopus-indexed publications or do not use Mendeley. The results also suggest that the lower of the two values (citation counts, reader counts) tends to underestimate of the impact of an article and so taking the maximum is a reasonable strategy for a combined impact indicator.
Citation:
Why do papers have many Mendeley readers but few Scopus-indexed citations and vice versa? 2015, 49 (2):144 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science
Publisher:
Sage
Journal:
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science
Issue Date:
14-Jul-2015
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/2436/620545
DOI:
10.1177/0961000615594867
Additional Links:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0961000615594867
Type:
Article
Language:
en
ISSN:
0961-0006; 1741-6477
Appears in Collections:
Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorThelwall, Mikeen
dc.date.accessioned2017-06-29T14:55:22Z-
dc.date.available2017-06-29T14:55:22Z-
dc.date.issued2015-07-14-
dc.identifier.citationWhy do papers have many Mendeley readers but few Scopus-indexed citations and vice versa? 2015, 49 (2):144 Journal of Librarianship and Information Scienceen
dc.identifier.issn0961-0006-
dc.identifier.issn1741-6477-
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0961000615594867-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2436/620545-
dc.description.abstractCounts of citations to academic articles are widely used as indicators of their scholarly impact. In addition, alternative indicators derived from social websites have been proposed to cover some of the shortcomings of citation counts. The most promising such indicator is counts of readers of an article in the social reference sharing site Mendeley. Although Mendeley reader counts tend to correlate strongly and positively with citation counts within scientific fields, an understanding of causes of citation-reader anomalies is needed before Mendeley reader counts can be used with confidence as indicators. In response, this article proposes a list reasons for anomalies based upon an analysis of articles that are highly cited but have few Mendeley readers, or vice versa. The results show that there are both technical and legitimate reasons for differences, with the latter including communities that use research but do not cite it in Scopus-indexed publications or do not use Mendeley. The results also suggest that the lower of the two values (citation counts, reader counts) tends to underestimate of the impact of an article and so taking the maximum is a reasonable strategy for a combined impact indicator.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSageen
dc.relation.urlhttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0961000615594867en
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Journal of Librarianship and Information Scienceen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectAltmetricsen
dc.subjectMendeleyen
dc.subjectScientometricsen
dc.titleWhy do papers have many Mendeley readers but few Scopus-indexed citations and vice versa?en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Librarianship and Information Scienceen
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.