Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorThelwall, Mike
dc.date.accessioned2017-03-09T14:43:07Z
dc.date.available2017-03-09T14:43:07Z
dc.date.issued2017-10-27
dc.identifier.citationThelwall, M. (2017), "Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published?", Aslib Journal of Information Management, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 174-183. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0028
dc.identifier.issn2050-3806en
dc.identifier.doi10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0028
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2436/620412
dc.descriptionThis is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Emerald Publishing Limited in Aslib Journal of Information Management on 27/10/2017, available online: https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0028 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.
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.
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherEmerald Publishing Limiteden
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0028/full/htmlen
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.typeJournal article
dc.identifier.journalAslib Journal of Information Managementen
dc.date.accepted2017-03-06
rioxxterms.funderUniversity of Wolverhamptonen
rioxxterms.identifier.projectUoW090317MTen
rioxxterms.versionAMen
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/CC BY-NC-ND 4.0en
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2017-05-01en
dc.source.volume69
dc.source.issue2
dc.source.beginpage174
dc.source.endpage183
refterms.dateFCD2018-07-24T09:08:46Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2017-05-01T00:00:00Z
html.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.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Mendeley vs Scopus first year ...
Size:
736.7Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/