In Modern Digital Environment various features of Citation Management tools Mendeley & Endnote: A study

This paper focused on various features of the citation management tool Mendeley and Endnote and at the end outcome had been pulled out to differentiate the two reference management tools. The originality of this paper is the various features of researcher\u27s reference in Mendeley and Endnote for better management in the field of research which has displayed that the reference management tool Mendeley is the best software to import more and more data from the Google Scholar for the research scholars. The analysis and finding will help how to use these tools

In Modern Digital Environment various features of Citation Management tools Mendeley & Endnote: A study

This paper focused on various features of the citation management tool Mendeley and Endnote and at the end outcome had been pulled out to differentiate the two reference management tools. The originality of this paper is the various features of researcher\u27s reference in Mendeley and Endnote for better management in the field of research which has displayed that the reference management tool Mendeley is the best software to import more and more data from the Google Scholar for the research scholars. The analysis and finding will help how to use these tools

Do Mendeley readership counts help to filter highly cited WoS publications better than average citation impact of journals (JCS)?

In this study, the academic status of users of scientific publications in Mendeley is explored in order to analyse the usage pattern of Mendeley users in terms of subject fields, citation and readership impact. The main focus of this study is on studying the filtering capacity of Mendeley readership counts compared to journal citation scores in detecting highly cited WoS publications. Main finding suggests a faster reception of Mendeley readerships as compared to citations across 5 major field of science. The higher correlations of scientific users with citations indicate the similarity between reading and citation behaviour among these users. It is confirmed that Mendeley readership counts filter highly cited publications (PPtop 10%) better than journal citation scores in all subject fields and by most of user types. This result reinforces the potential role that Mendeley readerships could play for informing scientific and alternative impacts.Comment: This paper presented at the 15th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI), 29 Jun-4 July, 2015, Bogazici University, Istanbul (Turkey

Analyzing readerships of International Iranian publications in Mendeley: an altmetrics study

In this study, the presence and distribution of both Mendeley readerships and Web of Science citations for the publications published in the 43 Iranian international journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports have been investigated. The aim was to determine the impact, visibility and use of the publications published by the Iranian international journals in Mendeley compared to their citation impact; furthermore, to explore if there is any relation between these two impact indicators (Mendeley readership counts and WoS citation counts) for these publications. The DOIs of the 1,884 publications used to extract the readerships data from Mendeley REST API in February 2014 and citations data until end of 2013 calculated using CWTS in-house WoS database. SPSS (version 21) used to analyze the relationship between the readerships and citations for those publications. The Mendeley usage distribution both at the publication level (across publications years, fields and document types) and at the user level (across users disciplines, academic status and countries) have been investigated. These information will help to understand the visibility and usage vs citation pattern and impact of Iranian scientific outputs.Comment: in Persia

Are Mendeley's public groups effective aggregators of high-value papers? An analysis based on paper readerships

At present, Mendeley is the only academic social networking service that allows users to form interest groups. Sharing papers relevant to the group theme is one of the major activities of group members. In this study, we focused on Mendeley’s public groups, interested in their effectiveness in aggregating high-value academic papers. The value of the papers can be indicated with their readerships, a popular altmetric. Do the papers shared in groups have higher readerships than the ones that are not shared in groups? We obtained significant results for all of the 24 Mendeley disciplines examined. However, disciplinary differences exist: natural sciences and engineering present relatively higher levels of paper readership disparity than humanities and social sciences. Our findings suggest that exploring groups’ paper collections is a useful alternative method of information seeking, especially in natural sciences and engineering

The pros and cons of the use of altmetrics in research assessment

© 2020 The Authors. Published by Levi Library Press. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: http://doi.org/10.29024/sar.10Many indicators derived from the web have been proposed to supplement citation-based indicators in support of research assessments. These indicators, often called altmetrics, are available commercially from Altmetric.com and Elsevier’s Plum Analytics or can be collected directly. These organisations can also deliver altmetrics to support institutional selfevaluations. The potential advantages of altmetrics for research evaluation are that they may reflect important non-academic impacts and may appear before citations when an article is published, thus providing earlier impact evidence. Their disadvantages often include susceptibility to gaming, data sparsity, and difficulties translating the evidence into specific types of impact. Despite these limitations, altmetrics have been widely adopted by publishers, apparently to give authors, editors and readers insights into the level of interest in recently published articles. This article summarises evidence for and against extending the adoption of altmetrics to research evaluations. It argues that whilst systematicallygathered altmetrics are inappropriate for important formal research evaluations, they can play a role in some other contexts. They can be informative when evaluating research units that rarely produce journal articles, when seeking to identify evidence of novel types of impact during institutional or other self-evaluations, and when selected by individuals or groups to support narrative-based non-academic claims. In addition, Mendeley reader counts are uniquely valuable as early (mainly) scholarly impact indicators to replace citations when gaming is not possible and early impact evidence is needed. Organisations using alternative indicators need recruit or develop in-house expertise to ensure that they are not misused, however

Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published?

This 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.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