Differences between journals and years in the proportions of students, researchers and faculty registering Mendeley articles
This article contains two investigations into Mendeley reader counts with the same dataset. Mendeley reader counts provide evidence of early scholarly impact for journal articles, but reflect the reading of a relatively young subset of all researchers. To investigate whether this age bias is constant or varies by narrow field and publication year, this article compares the proportions of student, researcher and faculty readers for articles published 1996–2016 in 36 large monodisciplinary journals. In these journals, undergraduates recorded the newest research and faculty the oldest, with large differences between journals. The existence of substantial differences in the composition of readers between related fields points to the need for caution when using Mendeley readers as substitutes for citations for broad fields. The second investigation shows, with the same data, that there are substantial differences between narrow fields in the time taken for Scopus citations to be as numerous as Mendeley readers. Thus, even narrow field differences can impact on the relative value of Mendeley compared to citation counts.
KeywordsMendeley Research evaluation Readership Faculty Students Citation analysis Altmetrics
- Lee, D. H., & Schleyer, T. (2012). Social tagging is no substitute for controlled indexing: A comparison of Medical Subject Headings and CiteULike tags assigned to 231,388 papers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 63(9), 1747–1757.Google Scholar
- Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. http://altmetrics.org.
- Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control: tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on science and technology indicators (Vol. 2, pp. 487–497).Google Scholar
- Zahedi, Z., Haustein, S., & Bowman, T. (2014b). Exploring data quality and retrieval strategies for Mendeley reader counts. Presentation at SIGMET metrics 2014 workshop, November 5, 2014. http://www.slideshare.net/StefanieHaustein/sigme-tworkshopasist2014.