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

What makes papers visible on social media? An analysis of various document characteristics

In this study we have investigated the relationship between different document characteristics and the number of Mendeley readership counts, tweets, Facebook posts, mentions in blogs and mainstream media for 1.3 million papers published in journals covered by the Web of Science (WoS). It aims to demonstrate that how factors affecting various social media-based indicators differ from those influencing citations and which document types are more popular across different platforms. Our results highlight the heterogeneous nature of altmetrics, which encompasses different types of uses and user groups engaging with research on social media.Comment: Presented at the 21th International Conference in Science & Technology Indicators (STI), 13-16, September, 2016, Valencia, Spai

On the relationships between bibliographic characteristics of scientific documents and citation and Mendeley readership counts: A large-scale analysis of Web of Science publications

In this paper we present a first large-scale analysis of the relationship between Mendeley readership and citation counts with particular documents bibliographic characteristics. A data set of 1.3 million publications from different fields published in journals covered by the Web of Science (WoS) has been analyzed. This work reveals that document types that are often excluded from citation analysis due to their lower citation values, like editorial materials, letters, or news items, are strongly covered and saved in Mendeley, suggesting that Mendeley readership can reliably inform the analysis of these document types. Findings show that collaborative papers are frequently saved in Mendeley, which is similar to what is observed for citations. The relationship between readership and the length of titles and number of pages, however, is weaker than for the same relationship observed for citations. The analysis of different disciplines also points to different patterns in the relationship between several document characteristics, readership, and citation counts. Overall, results highlight that although disciplinary differences exist, readership counts are related to similar bibliographic characteristics as those related to citation counts, reinforcing the idea that Mendeley readership and citations capture a similar concept of impact, although they cannot be considered as equivalent indicators

Assessing the Impact of Publications Saved by Mendeley Users: Is There Any Different Pattern Among Users?

The main focus of this paper is to investigate the impact of publications read (saved) by the different users in Mendeley in order to explore the extent to which their readership counts correlate with their citation indicators. The potential of filtering highly cited papers by Mendeley readerships and its different users have been also explored. For the analysis of the users, we have considered the information of the top three Mendeley ‘users’ reported by the Mendeley. Our results show that publications with Mendeley readerships tend to have higher citation and journal citation scores than publications without readerships. ‘Biomedical & health sciences’ and ‘Mathematics and computer science’ are the fields with respectively the most and the least readership activity in Mendeley. PhD students have the highest density of readerships per publication and Lecturers and Librarians have the lowest across all the different fields. Our precision-recall analysis indicates that in general, for publications with at least one reader in Mendeley, the capacity of readerships of filtering highly cited publications is better than (or at least as good as) Journal Citation Scores. We discuss the important limitation of Mendeley of only reporting the top three readers and not all of them in the potential development of indicators based on Mendeley and its users

What do we know about Altmetric.com sources? A study of the top 200 blogs and news sites mentioning scholarly outputs

This paper presents a preliminary study of the diversity and typology of users and uses around scholarly outputs in blogs and news sites as tracked by Altmetric.com. The top 100 blogs and top 100 news websites in terms of mentioning publications, for which their URLs are available, have been considered for a deeper analysis. The identified sources were manually analyzed on the respective websites and on the available Altmetric.com metadata and classified in order to understand how the scholarly outputs are mentioned

Mendeley readership as a filtering tool to identify highly cited publications

This study presents a large scale analysis of the distribution and presence of Mendeley readership scores over time and across disciplines. We study whether Mendeley readership scores (RS) can identify highly cited publications more effectively than journal citation scores (JCS). Web of Science (WoS) publications with DOIs published during the period 2004-2013 and across 5 major scientific fields have been analyzed. The main result of this study shows that readership scores are more effective (in terms of precision/recall values) than journal citation scores to identify highly cited publications across all fields of science and publication years. The findings also show that 86.5% of all the publications are covered by Mendeley and have at least one reader. Also the share of publications with Mendeley readership scores is increasing from 84% in 2004 to 89% in 2009, and decreasing from 88% in 2010 to 82% in 2013. However, it is noted that publications from 2010 onwards exhibit on average a higher density of readership vs. citation scores. This indicates that compared to citation scores, readership scores are more prevalent for recent publications and hence they could work as an early indicator of research impact. These findings highlight the potential and value of Mendeley as a tool for scientometric purposes and particularly as a relevant tool to identify highly cited publications

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

The Many Ways of Addressing Societal Impact Evaluations in Dutch Universities

The societal impact of research and education, as well as collaborations with industry and society at large occupy a central position in the strategies of many higher education institutions in the Netherlands and across the globe. The current report provides the result of a survey across Dutch universities performed by the members of the Task Force Societal Impact (TFSI). The survey aimed at creating a better understanding of the current approaches of Dutch universities to societal impact evaluation, sharing their considerations, and in identifying relevant initiatives or best practices at the national level. </p