Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement

Li, Xuemei; Thelwall, Mike; Giustini, Dean

doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0580-x

Cited by 217 publications

(192 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

180

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This indicator can be broken down by readers' occupations (Mohammadi et al 2015(Mohammadi et al , p. 1844 so that in some cases this metric may reflect traditional impacts and in other cases reflect other types of impacts (Li et al 2012;Mohammadi et al 2015). Mendeley readership counts may be particularly useful in social sciences and engineering areas where there are more Mendeley readers than Scopus citations (Mohammadi et al 2015(Mohammadi et al , p. 1844.…”

Section: Mendeley Readersmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Mas-Bleda

2016

Scientometrics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compares Spanish and UK research in eight subject fields using a range of bibliometric and social media indicators. For each field, lists of Spanish and UK journal articles published in the year 2012 and their citation counts were extracted from Scopus. The software Webometric Analyst was then used to extract a range of altmetrics for these articles, including patent citations, online presentation mentions, online course syllabus mentions, Wikipedia mentions and Mendeley reader counts and Altmetric.com was used to extract Twitter mentions. Results show that Mendeley is the altmetric source with the highest coverage, with 80% of sampled articles having one or more Mendeley readers, followed by Twitter (34%). The coverage of the remaining sources was lower than 3%. All of the indicators checked either have too little data or increase the overall difference between Spain and the UK and so none can be suggested as alternatives to reduce the bias against Spain in traditional citation indexes.

show abstract

Section: Mendeley Readersmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Mas-Bleda

2016

Scientometrics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 Much early altmetrics research has examined reference managers, particularly Mendeley and CiteULike. Li et al (2011) found 92 % of Nature and Science articles in their sample had been bookmarked by one or more Mendeley users, and 60 % by one or more CiteULike users. Bar-Ilan (2012) showed 97 % coverage of recent JASIST articles in Mendeley.…”

Section: Scholarly Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Altmetrics and Other Novel Measures for Scientific Impact

Fenner

2013

Opening Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Good science, original work, always went beyond the body of received opinion, always represented a dissent from orthodoxy. However, then, could the orthodox fairly assess it ? -Richard Rhodes mod. from Michael Polanyi in ''Making of the Atomic Bomb'' Abstract Impact assessment is one of the major drivers in scholarly communication, in particular since the number of available faculty positions and grants has far exceeded the number of applications. Peer review still plays a critical role in evaluating science, but citation-based bibliometric indicators are becoming increasingly important. This chapter looks at a novel set of indicators that can complement both citation analysis and peer review. Altmetrics use indicators gathered in the real-time Social Web to provide immediate feedback about scholarly works. We describe the most important altmetrics and provide a critical assessment of their value and limitations.

show abstract

“…Zotero could become an alternative source for reader counts, as they have announced that they will provide data via an API soon. Mendeley has shown moderate to high positive correlations with citations, indicating an academic interest Li, Thelwall, & Giustini, 2011;Mohammadi & Thelwall, 2014;Mohammadi, Thelwall, Haustein, & Larivière, 2015). However, correlations are not high enough to consider Mendeley reader counts as alternatives to citations.…”

Section: Social Bookmarkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making institutional repositories work

2016

Choice Reviews Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement

Cited by 217 publications

References 20 publications

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

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

Altmetrics and Other Novel Measures for Scientific Impact

Making institutional repositories work

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About