Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations

Abstract

Although Mendeley bookmarking counts appear to correlate moderately with conventional citation metrics, it is not known whether academic publications are bookmarked in Mendeley in order to be read or not. Without this information, it is not possible to give a confident interpretation of altmetrics derived from Mendeley. In response, a survey of 860 Mendeley users shows that it is reasonable to use Mendeley bookmarking counts as an indication of readership because most (55%) users with a Mendeley library had read or intended to read at least half of their bookmarked publications. This was true across all broad areas of scholarship except for the arts and humanities (42%). About 85% of the respondents also declared that they bookmarked articles in Mendeley to cite them in their publications, but some also bookmark articles for use in professional (50%), teaching (25%), and educational activities (13%). Of course, it is likely that most readers do not record articles in Mendeley and so these data do not represent all readers. In conclusion, Mendeley bookmark counts seem to be indicators of readership leading to a combination of scholarly impact and wider professional impact.

Do Mendeley reader counts reflect the scholarly impact of conference papers? An investigation of computer science and engineering

“…An analysis of the 'career stages' of the different Mendeley users found that Postdocs and PhD students register more in Mendeley than any other user category (Zahedi, Costas & Wouters, 2013). A Mendeley survey found that out of 860 Mendeley users, 55% who had bookmarked articles in Mendeley had read them or intended to read them (Mohammadi, Thelwall & Kousha, 2015). However, not all readers record their articles in Mendeley, so the data does not represent all readers, but, most importantly, the survey shows that Mendeley bookmark counts are an indicator of readership.…”

Can alternative indicators overcome language biases in citation counts? A comparison of Spanish and UK research

“…Mendeley lets users connect with each other (Zaugg et al 2011) and form groups (Jeng et al 2015). Mendeley users can save publications in their personal libraries with the intention of reading and/or citing them for research, professional activities and teaching (Mohammadi et al 2016). …”

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

“…Mendeley is public and so the number of people registering an article in the site is evidence of the impact of that article, even if the article does not have a citation count in traditional research indexes (Maleki, 2015). Since articles are usually registered by people who have read them or who intend to read them (Mohammadi, Thelwall, & Kousha, 2016) it is reasonable to consider this as evidence of readership. Nevertheless, intention to read is not the same actually reading and so it may be that a lower proportion of articles registered in Mendeley are ever read.…”

“…Nevertheless, intention to read is not the same actually reading and so it may be that a lower proportion of articles registered in Mendeley are ever read. An overwhelming majority of users register articles in order to cite them (three quarters or more in all many disciplines), but substantial minorities also use Mendeley to aid teaching and to keep track of literature (Mohammadi, Thelwall, & Kousha, 2016). Mendeley reader counts are likely to be substantial underestimates of the amount of interest in an article because presumably only a small minority of the readers of an article use Mendeley (other reference managers exist: Borrego & Fry, 2012) and people may read an article without needing to add it to their Mendeley library.…”