Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators pp 761–779Cite as

Readership Data and Research Impact

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Springer Handbooks ((SHB))

Abstract

Reading academic publications is a key scholarly activity. Scholars accessing and recording academic publications online are producing new types of readership data. These include publisher, repository, and academic social network download statistics as well as online reference manager records. This chapter discusses the use of download and reference manager data for research evaluation and library collection development. The focus is on the validity and application of readership data as an impact indicator for academic publications across different disciplines. Mendeley is particularly promising in this regard, although all data sources are not subjected to rigorous quality control and can be manipulated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • M.J. Kurtz, J. Bollen: Usage bibliometrics, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 44(1), 1–64 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Haustein: Readership metrics. In: Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact, ed. by B. Cronin, C. Sugimoto (MIT Press, Cambridge 2014) pp. 327–344

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Thelwall, K. Kousha: ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship?, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66(5), 876–889 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. Tenopir, D.W. King, M.T. Clarke, K. Na, X. Zhou: Journal reading patterns and preferences of pediatricians, J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 95(1), 56–63 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • F.A. McAlister, I. Graham, G.W. Karr, A. Laupacis: Evidence-based medicine and the practicing clinician, J. Gen. Int. Med. 14(4), 236–242 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L.M. Schilling, J.F. Steiner, K. Lundahl, R.J. Anderson: Residents' patient-specific clinical questions: opportunities for evidence-based learning, Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll. 80(1), 51–56 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Haque, P. Ginsparg: Positional effects on citation and readership in arXiv, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60(11), 2203–2218 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Grabowsky: Expanding access: An evaluation of ReadCube access as an ILL alternative, Med. Ref. Serv. Q. 35(1), 16–26 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E. Emrani, A. Moradi-Salari, H.R. Jamali: Usage data, e-journal selection, and negotiations: An Iranian consortium experience, Ser. Rev. 36(2), 86–92 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A.F.J. van Raan: In matters of quantitative studies of science the fault of theorists is offering too little and asking too much, Scientometrics 43(1), 129–139 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Duy, L. Vaughan: Can electronic journal usage data replace citation data as a measure of journal use? An empirical examination, J. Acad. Librar. 32(5), 512–517 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • I. Rowlands, D. Nicholas: The missing link: Journal usage metrics, Aslib Proc. 59(3), 222–228 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P.L.K. Gross, E.M. Gross: College libraries and chemical education, Science 66(1713), 385–389 (1927), https://doi.org/10.1126/science.66.1713.385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H.D. White, K.W. McCain: Bibliometrics, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 24, 119–186 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  • L. Egghe, R. Rousseau: The influence of publication delays on the observed aging distribution of scientific literature, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 51(2), 158–165 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. King, C. Tenopir, M. Clarke: Measuring total reading of journal articles, D-Lib Mag. (2006), https://doi.org/10.1045/october2006-king

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P.M. Davis: Information-seeking behavior of chemists: A transaction log analysis of referral URLs, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 55(4), 326–332 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • T. Stankus, B. Rice: Handle with Care, Collect. Manag. 4(1/2), 95–110 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M.Y. Tsay: The relationship between journal use in a medical library and citation use, Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 86(1), 31–39 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  • N.J. Butkovich: Use studies: A selective review, Libr. Resour. Tech. Serv. 40(4), 359–368 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R.N. Kostoff: The principles and practices of peer review, Sci. Eng. Ethics 3(1), 19–34 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Wouters: Citation cycles and peer review cycles, Scientometrics 38(1), 39–55 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.W. Jayasinghe, H.W. Marsh, N. Bond: A multilevel cross-classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: The effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings, J.R. Stat. Soc. A (Stat. Soc.) 166(3), 279–300 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HEFCE: Research Excellence Framework, Vol. 2011 (HEFCE, London 2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • Advisory Board for the Research Councils (ABRC): Peer Review. A Report to the Advisory Board for the Research Councils from the Working Group on Peer Review (ABRC, London 1990)

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Smith: Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals, J. R. Soc. Med. 99(4), 178–182 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C.J. Lee, C.R. Sugimoto, G. Zhang, B. Cronin: Bias in peer review, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 64(1), 2–17 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • I. Welch: Referee recommendations, Rev. Financ. Stud. 27(9), 2773–2804 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A.F.J. van Raan: The Pandora's Box of citation analysis: Measuring scientific excellence – the last evil? In: The Web of Knowledge: A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield, ed. by E. Garfield, B. Cronin, H.B. Atkins (ASIS Monograph Series: Information Today, Medford 2000) pp. 301–320

    Google Scholar 

  • L. Egghe: Mathematical relations between impact factors and average number of citations, Inf. Process. Manag. 24(5), 567–576 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R.P. Dellavalle, L.M. Schilling, M.A. Rodriguez, H.J. Van de Sompel: Bollen: Refining dermatology journal impact factors using PageRank, J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 57(1), 116–119 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • T. Opthof: Sense and nonsense about the impact factor, Cardiovasc. Res. 33(1), 1–7 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S.K. Boell, C.S. Wilson: Journal impact factors for evaluating scientific performance: Use of h-like indicators, Scientometrics 82(3), 613–626 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L. Waltman, N.J. van Eck, T.N. van Leeuwen, M.S. Visser, A.F.J. van Raan: Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations, J. Informetrics 5(1), 37–47 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Thelwall: Does Mendeley provide evidence of the educational value of journal articles?, Learn. Publ. 30(2), 107–113 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Thelwall: Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation, J. Informetrics 11(1), 128–151 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J.E. Hirsch: An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102(46), 16569 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R. Merton: The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago 1973)

    Google Scholar 

  • M.H. MacRoberts, B.R. MacRoberts: Problems of citation analysis: A critical review, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 40(5), 342–349 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M.H. MacRoberts, B.R. MacRoberts: Problems of citation analysis, Scientometrics 36(3), 435–444 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R.N. Kostoff: The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation, Scientometrics 43(1), 27–43 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • F. Merkx, I. van der Weijden, A.-M. Oostveen, P. van den Besselaar, J. Spaapen: Evaluation of research in context: A quick scan of an emerging field (Rathenau Institute, Department of Science System Assessment, The Hague 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Schloegl, W.G. Stock: Impact and relevance of LIS journals: A scientometric analysis of international and German-language LIS journals – Citation analysis versus reader survey, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 55(13), 1155–1168 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • N.L. Bennett, L.L. Casebeer, R.E. Kristofco, S.M. Strasser: Physicians' Internet information-seeking behaviors, J. Contin. Educ. Health Prof. 24(1), 31–38 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • G. Lewison: From biomedical research to health improvement, Scientometrics 54(2), 179–192 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • W.G. Stock: The inflation of impact factors of scientific journals, ChemPhysChem 10(13), 2193–2196 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. Tenopir, D.W. King: Towards Electronic Journals: Realities for Scientists, Librarians, and Publishers (Special Libraries Association, Washington 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • NSF: Proposal and award policies and procedures guide; Changes to the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Effective January 14, 2013 Virginia. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_index.jsp (2013)

  • H. Piwowar: Altmetrics: Value all research products, Nature 493(7431), 159–159 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HEFCE (2011): Decisions on assessing research impact. Higher Education Funding Council for England. https://www.ref.ac.uk/2014/media/ref/content/pub/assessmentframeworkandguidanceonsubmissions/GOS%20including%20addendum.pdf

  • G. Abramo, T. Cicero, C.A. D'Angelo: Assessing the varying level of impact measurement accuracy as a function of the citation window length, J. Informetrics 5(4), 659–667 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L. Drooge, P. Besselaar, G. Elsen, M. Haas: Evaluating the Societal Relevance of Academic Research: A Guide (Rathenau Instituut, The Hague 2010), http://depot.knaw.nl/9026/

    Google Scholar 

  • S.P.L. de Jong, P. van Arensbergen, F. Daemen, B. van der Meulen, P. van den Besselaar: Evaluation of research in context: An approach and two cases, Res. Eval. 20(1), 61–72 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Priem, D. Taraborelli, P. Groth, C. Neylon: Alt-metrics: A manifesto. (2010) Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto

  • L. Czerniewicz, C. Kell, M. Willmers, T. King: Changing Research Communication Practices and Open Scholarship: A Framework for Analysis. Scholarly Communication in Africa Programme. Retrieved from https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/9068 (2014)

  • L. Van der Vaart, M. Van Berchum, R. Bruce, M. Burgess, G. Hanganu, N. Jacobs, D. Lecarpentier, S. Pinfield, P. Stokes: ‘Open' as the default modus operandi for research and higher education. European Network for Co-ordination of Policies and Programmes on e-Infrastructures (2013) Available at: http://e-infranet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/e-InfraNet-Open-as-the-Default-Modus-Operandi-for-Research-and-Higher-Education.pdf.

  • B. Cronin, H.W. Snyder, H. Rosenbaum, A. Martinson, E. Callahan: Invoked on the Web, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 49(14), 1319–1328 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Haustein: Taking a multidimensional approach toward journal evaluation. In: Proceedings of the ISSI Conference, Vol. 2 (ISSI Society, Durban 2011) pp. 280–291

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Haustein: Multidimensional Journal Evaluation Analyzing Scientific Periodicals beyond the Impact Factor (De Gruyter, Saur, Berlin, Boston 2012)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • R. Rousseau: Exponential decline in the use distribution of medical journals, J. Documentation 56(4), 454–455 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • M.J. Kurtz, G. Eichhorn, A. Accomazzi, C. Grant, M. Demleitner, S.S. Murray, N. Martimbeau, B. Elwell: The bibliometric properties of article readership information, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 56(2), 111–128 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COUNTER: About COUNTER. Retrieved January 1, 2017, from https://www.projectcounter.org/about (2017)

  • O. Pesch: Implementing SUSHI and COUNTER: A primer for librarians, Ser. Librar. 69(2), 107–125 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H.D. White, S.K. Boell, H. Yu, M. Davis, C.S. Wilson, F.T. Cole: Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60(6), 1083–1096 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Bollen, H. Van de Sompel: Usage impact factor: The effects of sample characteristics on usage-based impact metrics, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59(1), 136–149 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • T.V. Perneger: Relation between online “hit counts” and subsequent citations: Prospective study of research papers in the BMJ, Br. Med. J. 329(7465), 546–547 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • T. Brody, S. Harnad, L. Carr: Earlier Web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 57(8), 1060–1072 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H. Chu, T. Krichel, N. Blvd: Downloads vs. citations: Relationships, contributing factors and beyond. In: Proc. 11th Int. Soc. Scientometr. Informetr. Conf., ed. by H.F. Moed (CINDOC, Madrid 2007) pp. 207–215

    Google Scholar 

  • K.-K. Yan, M. Gerstein: The spread of scientific information: insights from the web usage statistics in PLoS article-level metrics, PLoS ONE 6(5), e19917 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H.F. Moed: Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 56(10), 1088–1097 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H.F. Moed, G. Halevi: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(2), 412–431 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L. Vaughan, J. Tang, R. Yang: Investigating disciplinary differences in the relationships between citations and downloads, Scientometrics 111(3), 1533–1545 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Wan, P. Hua, R. Rousseau, X. Sun: The journal download immediacy index (DII): Experiences using a Chinese full-text database, Scientometrics 82(3), 555–566 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J.L. Wulff, N.D. Nixon: Quality markers and use of electronic journals in an academic health sciences library, J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 92(3), 315–322 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Darmoni, F. Roussel: Reading factor: A new bibliometric criterion for managing digital libraries, J. Med. Libr. 90(3), 323–327 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Bollen, H.M.A. Van de Sompel Rodriguez: Towards usage-based impact metrics. In: Proc. 8th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conf. Digit. Libr (ACM, New York 2008) pp. 231–240

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Duin, D. King, P. Van Den Besselaar: Identifying audiences of e-infrastructures-tools for measuring impact, PloS one 7(12), e50943 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Haustein, T. Siebenlist: Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage, J. Informetrics 5(3), 446–457 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Anderson, J. Sack, L. Krauss, L. O'Keefe: Publishing online-only peer-reviewed biomedical literature: Three years of citation, author perception, and usage experience, J. Electron. Publ. (2001), https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0006.303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. Zimmermann: Academic rankings with RePEc, Econometrics 1(3), 249–280 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. Neylon, S. Wu: Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact, PLoS Biol. 7(11), 6 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K.J. Holmberg: Altmetrics for Information Professionals: Past, Present and Future (Chandos, Oxford 2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Wouters, R. Costas: Users, narcissism and control – tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Image Rochester NY, 50 pages. Retrieved from http://www.surffoundation.nl/en/publicaties/Pages/Users_narcissism_control.aspx (2012)

  • J. Liu, E. Adie: Five challenges in altmetrics: A toolmaker's perspective, Bull. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 39, 31–34 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Fenner: What can article-level metrics do for you?, PLoS Biol. 11(10), e1001687 (2013), http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Priem, H.A. Piwowar, B.M. Hemminger: Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact, Arxiv Preprint arXiv:1203.4745 (2012) Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/html/1203.4745v1

  • R.R. Winslow, S.L. Skripsky, S.L. Kelly: Not just for citations: Assessing Zotero while reassessing research. In: Information literacy: Research and collaboration across disciplines, ed. by B.J. D'Angelo, S. Jamieson, B. Maid, J.R. Walker (WAC Clearinghouse and University Press of Colorado, Fort Collins 2016) pp. 287–304

    Google Scholar 

  • G. Eysenbach: Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact, J. Med. Internet Res. 13(4), e123 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. Benz, A. Hotho, R. Jäschke, B. Krause, F. Mitzlaff, C. Schmitz, G. Stumme: The social bookmark and publication management system Bibsonomy, VLDB J. – Int. J. Very Large Data Bases 19(6), 849–875 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R. Jäschke, A. Hotho, C. Schmitz, M. Grahl, B. Krause, G. Stumme: Organizing publications and bookmarks in BibSonomy, CEUR Workshop Proc. 273, 2–5 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • J.L. Ortega: Social Network Sites for Scientists: A Quantitative Survey (Chandos, Cambridge 2016)

    Google Scholar 

  • Á. Borrego, J. Fry: Measuring researchers' use of scholarly information through social bookmarking data: A case study of BibSonomy, J. Inf. Sci. 38(3), 297–308 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Reher, S. Haustein: Social bookmarking in STM: Putting services to the acid test, Online Lead. Mag. Inf. Prof. 34(6), 34–42 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Bogers, A. Van Den Bosch: Recommending scientific articles using citeulike. In: Proc. 2008 ACM Conf. Recomm. Syst. RecSys 08 (ACM, Lausanne 2008) pp. 287–290

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • V. Henning, J. Reichelt: Mendeley-A Last.fm for research? In: IEEE 4th Int. Conf. eSci. (eScience'08) (IEEE, Los Alamitos 2008) pp. 327–328

    Google Scholar 

  • W. Jeng, D. He, J. Jiang: User participation in an academic social networking service: A survey of open group users on Mendeley, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66(5), 890–904 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • W. Gunn: Social signals reflect academic impact: What it means when a scholar adds a paper to Mendeley, Inf. Stand. Q. 25(2), 33–39 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Thelwall, N. Maflahi: Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? An analysis of Mendeley readers, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66(6), 1124–1135 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Thelwall: Web Indicators for Research Evaluation: A Practical Guide (Morgan Claypool, San Rafael 2017)

    Google Scholar 

  • X. Li, M. Thelwall, D. Giustini: Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement, Scientometrics 91(2), 461–471 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Bar-Ilan: JASIST 2001–2010, Bull. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 38(6), 24–28 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Haustein, V. Larivière, M. Thelwall, D. Amyot, I. Peters: Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ?, Inf. Technol. 56(5), 207–215 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Thelwall, P. Wilson: Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(8), 1962–1972 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E. Mohammadi, M. Thelwall, S. Haustein, V. Larivière: Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66(9), 1832–1846 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E. Mohammadi, M. Thelwall: Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(8), 1627–1638 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • B. Hammarfelt: Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities, Scientometrics 101(2), 1419–1430 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Z. Zahedi, R. Costas, P. Wouters: How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of “alternative metrics” in scientific publications, Scientometrics 101(2), 1491–1513 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K. Kousha, M. Thelwall: Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books?, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(3), 566–581 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Sud, M. Thelwall: Evaluating altmetrics, Scientometrics 98(2), 1131–1143 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • X. Li, M. Thelwall: F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. In: 17th Int. Conf. Sci. Technol. Ind, Vol. 2 (2012) pp. 451–551

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Thelwall: Do Mendeley reader counts indicate the value of arts and humanities research?, J. Librariansh. Inf. Sci. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617732381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Thelwall: Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields?, Scientometrics 113(3), 1721–1731 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K.J. Aduku, M. Thelwall, K. Kousha: Do Mendeley reader counts reflect the scholarly impact of conference papers? An investigation of computer science and engineering, Scientometrics 112(1), 573–581 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HEFCE: The Metric Tide Supplementary Report II: Correlation analysis of REF2014 scores and metrics (HEFCE, London 2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Thelwall, N. Maflahi: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(4), 960–966 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K. Weller, I. Peters: Citations in Web 2.0. In: Science and the Internet, ed. by A. Tokar, M. Beurskens, S. Keuneke, M. Mahrt, I. Peters, C. Puschmann, K. Weller (Düsseldorf Univ. Press, Düsseldorf 2012) pp. 209–222

    Google Scholar 

  • D. MacMillan: Mendeley: Teaching scholarly communication and collaboration through social networking, Libr. Manag. 33(8/9), 561–569 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E. Mohammadi, M. Thelwall, K. Kousha: Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(5), 1198–1209 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Thelwall: Why do papers have many Mendeley readers but few Scopus-indexed citations and vice versa?, J. Librariansh. Inf. Sci. 49(2), 144–151 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • V. Larivière, C.R. Sugimoto, P. Bergeron: In their own image? A comparison of doctoral students' and faculty members' referencing behavior, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 64(5), 1045–1054 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. Tenopir, D.W. King, J. Spencer, L. Wu: Variations in article seeking and reading patterns of academics: What makes a difference?, Libr. Inf. Sci. Res. 31(3), 139–148 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Korobili, A. Malliari, S. Zapounidou: Factors that influence information-seeking behavior: The case of Greek graduate students, J. Acad. Librariansh. 37(2), 155–165 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E. Whitmire: Disciplinary differences and undergraduates' information-seeking behavior, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 53(8), 631–638 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Mas-Bleda, M. Thelwall, K. Kousha, I.F. Aguillo: Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web?, Scientometrics 101(1), 337–356 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • N. Maflahi, M. Thelwall: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(1), 191–199 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Thelwall, P. Sud: Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(12), 3036–3050 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Z. Zahedi, R. Costas, P. Wouters: Do Mendeley readership counts help to filter highly cited WoS publications better than average citation impact of journals (JCS)? In: Proc. 15th Int. Conf. Int. Soc. Scientometr. Informetr, ed. by A.A. Salah, Y. Tonta, A.A.A. Salah, C. Sugimoto, U. Al (Boğaziçi University Printhouse, Istanbul 2015) pp. 16–25

    Google Scholar 

  • N. Maflahi, M. Thelwall: How quickly do publications get read? The evolution of Mendeley reader counts for new articles, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 69(1), 158–167 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R. Fairclough, M. Thelwall: National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers, J. Informetrics 9(4), 845–859 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Thelwall, K. Kousha, A. Dinsmore, K. Dolby: Alternative metric indicators for funding scheme evaluations, Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 68(1), 2–18 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Dinsmore, L. Allen, K. Dolby: Alternative perspectives on impact: The potential of ALMs and altmetrics to inform funders about research impact, PLoS Biol. 12(11), e1002003 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Kudlow, M. Cockerill, D. Toccalino, D.B. Dziadyk, A. Rutledge, A. Shachak, G. Eysenbach: Online distribution channel increases article usage on Mendeley: A randomized controlled trial, Scientometrics 112(3), 1537–1556 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H. Small: Update on science mapping: Creating large document spaces, Scientometrics 38(2), 275–293 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Jiang, D. He, C. Ni: Social reference: Aggregating online usage of scientific literature in CiteULike for clustering academic resources. In: Proc. 11th Annu. Int. ACM/IEEE Jt. Conf. Digit. Libr. – JCDL '11 (ACM, New York 2011) p. 401

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • P. Kraker, C. Körner, K. Jack, M. Granitzer: Harnessing user library statistics for research evaluation and knowledge domain visualization. In: Proc. 21st Int. Conf. Companion World Wide Web WWW 12 Companion (ACM, Lyon 2012) p. 1017

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • T. Heck, I. Peters, W.G. Stock: Testing collaborative filtering against co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling for academic author recommendation. In: Proc. 3rd ACM Workshop Recomm. Syst. Soc. Web, ed. by B. Mobasher, J. Burke (ACM, New York 2011) pp. 16–23

    Google Scholar 

  • É. Archambault, D. Campbell, Y. Gingras, V. Larivière: Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60(7), 1320–1326 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Thelwall: Microsoft Academic: A multidisciplinary comparison of citation counts with Scopus and Mendeley for 29 journals, J. Informetrics 11(4), 1201–1212 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K. Kousha, M. Thelwall, M. Abdoli: Goodreads reviews to assess the wider impacts of books, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 68(8), 2004–2016 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Mas-Bleda, M. Thelwall: Can alternative indicators overcome language biases in citation counts? A comparison of Spanish and UK research, Scientometrics 109(3), 2007–2030 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Fenner: Altmetrics and other novel measures for scientific impact. In: Opening Science, ed. by S. Bartling, S. Friesike (Springer, Cham 2014) pp. 179–189

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • S. Konkiel: Altmetrics: A 21st-century solution to determining research quality, Online Search, https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/17147, July/August (2013)

  • L. Bornmann, R. Haunschild: Which people use which scientific papers? An evaluation of data from F1000 and Mendeley, J. Informetrics 9(3), 477–487 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H.R. Jamali: Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles, Scientometrics 112(1), 241–254 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2291-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K. Jordan: Exploring the ResearchGate score as an academic metric: Reflections and implications for practice. In: Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web (ASCW'15), Oxford (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Jordan: Understanding the structure and role of academics' ego-networks on social networking sites, PhD Thesis (The Open University, Milton Keynes 2017), http://oro.open.ac.uk/48259/

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Orduna-Malea, A. Martín-Martín, M. Thelwall, E. Delgado López-Cózar: Do ResearchGate Scores create ghost academic reputations?, Scientometrics (2017), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2396-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Thelwall, K. Kousha: ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size, and impact, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 68(2), 468–479 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Thelwall, K. Kousha: ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations?, Scientometrics (2017), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2400-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Thelwall, K. Kousha: Web indicators for research evaluation, part 1: Citations and links to academic articles from the web, Prof. Inf. 24(5), 587–606 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Thelwall, K. Kousha: Academia.edu: Social network or academic network?, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(4), 721–731 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Library and Information Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

    Ehsan Mohammadi

  2. Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK

    Mike Thelwall

Authors
  1. Ehsan Mohammadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mike Thelwall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ehsan Mohammadi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ECOOM and Faculty of Economics and Business, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Wolfgang Glänzel

  2. Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Henk F. Moed

  3. Competence Center Policy – Industry – Innovation, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Ulrich Schmoch

  4. Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK

    Mike Thelwall

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M. (2019). Readership Data and Research Impact. In: Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch, U., Thelwall, M. (eds) Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Springer Handbooks. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_29

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation