Abstract
Recent advances in computational power and the advancement of the internet mean that we now have access to a wider array of data than ever before. If used appropriately, and in conjunction with peer evaluation and careful interpretation, metrics can inform and enhance research assessment through the benefits of being impartial, comparable, and scalable. There have been several calls for a “basket of metrics” to be incorporated into research evaluation. However, research is a multi-faceted and complex endeavor. Its outputs and outcomes vary, in particular by field, so measuring research impact can be challenging. In this paper, we reflect on the concept of field-weighting and discuss field-weighting methodologies. We study applications of field-weighting for Mendeley reads and present comparative analyses of field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) and field-weighted readership impact (FWRI). We see that there is a strong correlation between the number of papers cited and read per country. Overall, per subject area for the most prolific countries, FWCI and FWRI values tend to be close. Variations per country tend to hold true per field. FWRI appears to be a robust metric that can offer a useful complement to FWCI, in that it provides insights on a different part of the scholarly communications cycle.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Hirsch, J.E.: An index to quantify an individual’s s scientific research output. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 16569–16572 (2005)
Garfield, E.: Citation indexing: its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. Libr. Q. 50(3), 384–385 (1979)
Waltman, L., van Eck, N.J., van Leeuwen, T.N., Visser, M.S., van Raan, A.F.J.: Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis. Scientometrics 87(3), 467–481 (2011)
Fiala, D., Šubelj, L., Žitnik, S., Bajec, M.: Do PageRank-based author rankings outperform simple citation counts? J. Informetrics 9, 334–348 (2015)
Ma, N., Guan, J., Zhao, Y.: Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis. Inf. Process. Manag. 44(2), 800–810 (2008)
Fiala, D., Tutoky, G.: PageRank-based prediction of award-winning researchers and the impact of citations. J. Informetrics 11(4), 1044–1068 (2017)
Waltman, L.: A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. J. Informetrics 10(2), 365–391 (2016)
Khor, K.A., Yu, L.G.: Influence of international co-authorship on the research citation impact of young universities. Scientometrics 107(3), 1095–1110 (2016)
Moed, H.F.: Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. J. Informetrics 4(3), 265–277 (2010)
Colledge, L., James, C., Azoulay, N., Meester, W., Plume, A.: CiteScore metrics are suitable to address different situations – a case study. Eur. Sci. Editing 43(2), 27–31 (2017)
Gunn, W.: Social signals reflect academic impact: what it means when a scholar adds a paper to Mendeley. Inf. Stan. Q. 25(2), 33–39 (2013)
PlumX Metrics (2017). https://plumanalytics.com/learn/about-metrics/
Sud, P., Thelwall, M.: Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics 98(2), 1131–1143 (2014)
Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., Wouters, P.: Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66(10), 2003–2019 (2015)
Colledge, L., James, C.: A “basket of metrics”—the best support for understanding journal merit. Eur. Sci. Editing 41(3), 61–65 (2015)
Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., Wouters, P.: How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of “alternative metrics” in scientific publications. Scientometrics 101(2), 1491–1513 (2014)
Maflahi, N., Thelwall, M.: 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)
Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V.: Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66(9), 1832–1846 (2015)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Huggett, S., James, C., Palmaro, E. (2018). Field-Weighting Readership: How Does It Compare to Field-Weighting Citations?. In: Erdt, M., Sesagiri Raamkumar, A., Rasmussen, E., Theng, YL. (eds) Altmetrics for Research Outputs Measurement and Scholarly Information Management. AROSIM 2018. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 856. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1053-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1053-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-1052-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-1053-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)