Skip to main content
Log in

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

Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Counts of Mendeley readers may give useful evidence about the impact of published research. Although previous studies have found significant positive correlations between counts of Mendeley readers and citation counts for journal articles, it is not known if this is equally true for conference papers. To fill this gap, Mendeley readership data and Scopus citation counts were extracted for both journal articles and conference papers published in 2011 in four fields for which conferences are important: Computer Science Applications; Computer Software; Building and Construction Engineering; and Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering. Mendeley readership counts correlated moderately with citation counts for both journal articles and conference papers in Computer Science Applications and Computer Software. The correlations were much lower between Mendeley readers and citation counts for conference papers than for journal articles in Building & Construction Engineering and Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering. Hence, there seem to be disciplinary differences in the usefulness of Mendeley readership counts as impact indicators for conference papers, even between fields for which conferences are important.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aduku, K. J., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K. (2016). Do Mendeley reader counts reflect the scholarly impact of conference papers? An investigation of computer science and engineering fields. In I. Rafols, J. Molas-Gallart, E. Castro-Martínez, R. Woolley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21th International conference on science and technology indicators—Peripheries, frontiers and beyond, Valencia (Spain).

  • Bar-Ilan, J. (2012). JASIST 2001–2010. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 38(6), 24–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., & Rodriguez, M. A. (2008). Towards usage-based impact metrics: First results from the mesur project. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, 231–240.

  • Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015). Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2003–2019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B. (2013). Metrics à la mode. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(6), 1091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowdy, S., Wearden, S., & Chilko, D. (2011). Statistics for research. New York: Wiley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Drott, M. C. (1995). Reexamining the role of conference papers in scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(4), 299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galloway, L. M., Pease, J. L., & Rauh, A. E. (2013). Introduction to altmetrics for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) librarians. Science and Technology Libraries, 32(4), 335–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodrum, A. A., McCain, K. W., Lawrence, S., & Giles, C. L. (2001). Scholarly publishing in the internet age: A citation analysis of computer science literature. Information Processing and Management, 37(5), 661–675.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gunn, W. (2013). Social signals reflect academic impact: What it means when a scholar adds a paper to mendeley. Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2), 33–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2014). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1145–1163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haustein, S., & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of informetrics, 5(3), 446–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, X., & Thelwall, M. (2011). F1000, mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, 2451–2551.

  • Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2011). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maflahi, N., & Thelwall, M. (2016). When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals. Journal of the Association for information Science and Technology, 67(1), 191–199.

  • Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(8), 1627–1638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015a). Who reads research articles? an altmetrics analysis of mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(9), 1832–1846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015b). Can mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi:10.1002/asi.23477.

  • Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. ArXiv Preprint arXiv:1203.4745.

  • Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved Jan 13, 2011.

  • Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131–1143. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M. (2015). Why do papers have many mendeley readers but few Scopus-indexed citations and vice versa? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. doi:10.1177/0961000615594867.

  • Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (2014). Regression for citation data: An evaluation of different methods. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 963–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Sud, P. (2015). Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(6), 3036–3050.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Salinas, D., Cabezas-Clavijo, Á., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2013). Altmetrics: New indicators for scientific communication in web 2.0. ArXiv Preprint arXiv:1306.659.

  • Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control: Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Utrecht: SURF foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2013). What is the impact of the publications read by the different mendeley users? Could they help to identify alternative types of impact?. San Francisco: Plos alm workshop.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This article is an extended version of a paper by Aduku et al. (2016) presented at the Science Technology Indicators (STI) conference, held in Valencia (Spain) on 14–16 September 2016. The authors would like to thank the conference reviewers and participants for comments on the earlier drafts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kuku Joseph Aduku.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aduku, K.J., Thelwall, M. & Kousha, K. Do Mendeley reader counts reflect the scholarly impact of conference papers? An investigation of computer science and engineering. Scientometrics 112, 573–581 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2367-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2367-1

Keywords

Navigation