, Volume 115, Issue 2, pp 717–729 | Cite as

Differences between journals and years in the proportions of students, researchers and faculty registering Mendeley articles

  • Mike Thelwall


This article contains two investigations into Mendeley reader counts with the same dataset. Mendeley reader counts provide evidence of early scholarly impact for journal articles, but reflect the reading of a relatively young subset of all researchers. To investigate whether this age bias is constant or varies by narrow field and publication year, this article compares the proportions of student, researcher and faculty readers for articles published 1996–2016 in 36 large monodisciplinary journals. In these journals, undergraduates recorded the newest research and faculty the oldest, with large differences between journals. The existence of substantial differences in the composition of readers between related fields points to the need for caution when using Mendeley readers as substitutes for citations for broad fields. The second investigation shows, with the same data, that there are substantial differences between narrow fields in the time taken for Scopus citations to be as numerous as Mendeley readers. Thus, even narrow field differences can impact on the relative value of Mendeley compared to citation counts.


Mendeley Research evaluation Readership Faculty Students Citation analysis Altmetrics 


  1. Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2011). Assessing the varying level of impact measurement accuracy as a function of the citation window length. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 659–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bar-Ilan, J. (2014). Astrophysics publications on arXiv, Scopus and Mendeley: A case study. Scientometrics, 100(1), 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dinkelman, A. L. (2010). Using course syllabi to assess research expectations of biology majors: Implications for further development of information literacy skills in the curriculum. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship. (paper 7).Google Scholar
  5. Fairclough, R., & Thelwall, M. (2015). National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 845–859. Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Haustein, S., Larivière, V., Thelwall, M., Amyot, D., & Peters, I. (2014). Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ. IT-Information Technology, 56(5), 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. HEFCE. (2015). The metric tide: Correlation analysis of REF2014 scores and metrics (Supplementary Report II to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management). HEFCE. Scholar
  9. Lee, D. H., & Schleyer, T. (2012). Social tagging is no substitute for controlled indexing: A comparison of Medical Subject Headings and CiteULike tags assigned to 231,388 papers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 63(9), 1747–1757.Google Scholar
  10. Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2011). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maflahi, N., & Thelwall, M. (2018). How quickly do publications get read? The evolution of Mendeley reader counts for new articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(1), 158–167. Scholar
  13. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015). Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(9), 1832–1846. Scholar
  15. Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2016). Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(5), 1198–1209. Scholar
  16. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto.
  17. Thelwall, M. (2016a). The precision of the arithmetic mean, geometric mean and percentiles for citation data: An experimental simulation modelling approach. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 110–123. Scholar
  18. Thelwall, M. (2016b). Interpreting correlations between citation counts and other indicators. Scientometrics, 108(1), 337–347. Scholar
  19. Thelwall, M. (2017a). Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 128–151. Scholar
  20. Thelwall, M. (2017b). Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? ASLIB Proceedings, 69(2), 174–183. Scholar
  21. Thelwall, M. (2017c). Why do papers have many Mendeley readers but few Scopus-indexed citations and vice versa? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 49(2), 144–151. Scholar
  22. Thelwall, M., & Maflahi, N. (2015). Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? An analysis of Mendeley readers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(6), 1124–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thelwall, M., & Sud, P. (2016). Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(6), 3036–3050. Scholar
  24. Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (2016). Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(8), 1962–1972. Scholar
  25. Van Noorden, R. (2014). Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512(7513), 126–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. (2011a). Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. (2011b). Towards a new crown indicator: An empirical analysis. Scientometrics, 87(3), 467–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Williams, L. M., Cody, S. A., & Parnell, J. (2004). Prospecting for new collaborations: Mining syllabi for library service opportunities. The Journal of academic librarianship, 30(4), 270–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control: tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on science and technology indicators (Vol. 2, pp. 487–497).Google Scholar
  30. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014a). How well developed are altmetrics? A crossdisciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1491–1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zahedi, Z., Haustein, S., & Bowman, T. (2014b). Exploring data quality and retrieval strategies for Mendeley reader counts. Presentation at SIGMET metrics 2014 workshop, November 5, 2014.
  32. Zitt, M. (2012). The journal impact factor: Angel, devil, or scapegoat? A comment on JK Vanclay’s article 2011. Scientometrics, 92(2), 485–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zoller, D., Doerfel, S., Jäschke, R., Stumme, G., & Hotho, A. (2016). Posted, visited, exported: Altmetrics in the social tagging system BibSonomy. Journal of Informetrics, 10(3), 732–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Statistical Cybermetrics Research GroupUniversity of WolverhamptonWolverhamptonUK

Personalised recommendations