Online distribution channel increases article usage on Mendeley: a randomized controlled trial

Kudlow, Paul; Cockerill, Matthew; Toccalino, Danielle; Dziadyk, Devin Bissky; Rutledge, Alan; Shachak, Aviv; McIntyre, Roger S.; Ravindran, Arun; Eysenbach, Gunther

doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2438-3

Cited by 19 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The social reference sharing site Mendeley (Henning & Reichelt, 2008) provides a convenient source of readership data (e.g., Kudlow, Cockerill, Toccalino, Dziadyk, Rutledge, Shachak, & Eysenbach, 2017;Zahedi, & van Eck, 2018) from the minority of researchers that use it (Van Noorden, 2014). Many studies have shown that Mendeley readership counts positively correlate with counts of citations to published journal articles (e.g., Costas, Zahedi, & Wouters, 2015;Thelwall, Haustein, Larivière, & Sugimoto, 2013;Zahedi, Costas, & Wouters, 2014).…”

Section: Mendeley Readership Countsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Google Scholar and Mendeley help to assess the scholarly impacts of dissertations?

Kousha

Thelwall

2019

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dissertations can be the single most important scholarly outputs of junior researchers. Whilst sets of journal articles are often evaluated with the help of citation counts from the Web of Science or Scopus, these do not index dissertations and so their impact is hard to assess. In response, this article introduces a new multistage method to extract Google Scholar citation counts for large collections of dissertations from repositories indexed by Google. The method was used to extract Google Scholar citation counts for 77,884 American doctoral dissertations from 2013-2017 via ProQuest, with a precision of over 95%. Some ProQuest dissertations that were dual indexed with other repositories could not be retrieved with ProQuest-specific searches but could be found with Google Scholar searches of the other repositories. The Google Scholar citation counts were then compared with Mendeley reader counts, a known source of scholarly-like impact data. A fifth of the dissertations had at least one citation recorded in Google Scholar and slightly fewer had at least one Mendeley reader. Based on numerical comparisons, the Mendeley reader counts seem to be more useful for impact assessment purposes for dissertations that are less than two years old, whilst Google Scholar citations are more useful for older dissertations, especially in social sciences, arts and humanities. Google Scholar citation counts may reflect a more scholarly type of impact than that of Mendeley reader counts because dissertations attract a substantial minority of their citations from other dissertations. In summary, the new method now makes it possible for research funders, institutions and others to systematically evaluate the impact of dissertations, although additional Google Scholar queries for other online repositories are needed to ensure comprehensive coverage.

show abstract

Section: Mendeley Readership Countsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Google Scholar and Mendeley help to assess the scholarly impacts of dissertations?

Kousha

Thelwall

2019

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…High correlations between Mendeley reader counts and citation counts in almost all narrow fields (n = 325) suggest that readership data is a type of scholarly impact indicator (Thelwall 2017). It is particularly useful as a source of early impact evidence (Kudlow et al 2017). Mendeley asks users to register some information about themselves, such as their occupation, country and subject area.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Female-authored Research have More Educational Impact than Male-authored Research? Evidence from Mendeley

Thelwall

2018

joa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Female academics are more likely to be in teaching-related roles in some countries, including the USA. As a side effect of this, female-authored journal articles may tend to be more useful for students. This study assesses this hypothesis by investigating whether female first-authored research has more uptake in education than male first-authored research. Based on an analysis of Mendeley readers of articles from 2014 in five countries and 100 narrow Scopus subject categories, the results show that female-authored articles attract more student readers than male-authored articles in Spain, Turkey, the UK and USA but not India. They also attract fewer professorial readers in Spain, the UK and the USA, but not India and Turkey, and tend to be less popular with senior academics. Because the results are based on analysis of differences within narrow fields they cannot be accounted for by females working in more educationrelated disciplines. The apparent additional educational impact for female-authored research could be due to selecting more accessible micro-specialisms, however, such as health-related instruments within the instrumentation narrow field. Whatever the cause, the results suggest that citation-based research evaluations may undervalue the wider impact of female researchers.

show abstract

“…This research indicated many Mendeley users are importing papers from the existing library. Various popular reference management tools exist to help researchers increase research and publication trend [17]. Furthermore, this research also showed many Mendeley users were rather qualified to import papers either from desktop or website.…”

Section: P8mentioning

confidence: 77%

Assessing Indonesian University Students’ Preferences on Mendeley Reference Manager for Scientific Writing

Hudriati

Rusdiah

Patak

et al. 2018

Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Writing for scientific paper might seem a frightening task to a new researcher. This research aims at assessing the preference of Indonesian university students in Mendeley reference manager for scientific writing. This research applied survey research to find data to decide the straightforward characteristics of Indonesian Mendeley community in scientific writing. The researchers analyzed the data by using one-way tables focusing on the preferences of Mendeley features, which include citing as you read, annotate as you read, organizing your content, and access your research anywhere. This research indicated that Indonesian university students prefer to use Mendeley Word plugin, but then rather inexperienced with Bibtex export with LaTeX that entails more strict skill. This research also showed many Indonesian university students were reasonably skilled importing papers either from desktop or website. This study also indicated that Indonesian university students prefer to access Mendeley using a mobile device. This research recommends the government and scholars as well as academician to increase the scientific publication trend, with policy support as an authorized control. Mendeley could be beneficial for learners' literacy development through mostly two Mendeley features entails "cite as you read" and "annotate as you read." Mendeley as one the Reference Managers encompasses a medium to facilitate student for automatic citing and referencing the sources properly. However, the scientific environment requires a serious awareness by related stakeholders to use Mendeley wisely.

show abstract

Online distribution channel increases article usage on Mendeley: a randomized controlled trial

Cited by 19 publications

References 27 publications

Can Google Scholar and Mendeley help to assess the scholarly impacts of dissertations?

Can Google Scholar and Mendeley help to assess the scholarly impacts of dissertations?

Does Female-authored Research have More Educational Impact than Male-authored Research? Evidence from Mendeley

Assessing Indonesian University Students’ Preferences on Mendeley Reference Manager for Scientific Writing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About