, Volume 121, Issue 1, pp 105–135 | Cite as

Who reads international Egyptian academic articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley readership categories

  • Metwaly Ali Mohamed EldakarEmail author


Mendeley is a social network that allows researchers worldwide to discover, search and share resources and to cooperate with peer researchers. We can recognize a large amount of exhaustive information about who reads research articles and the contexts in which research articles are read by using data about people who register in Mendeley as readers of articles. The purpose of this paper is to explore different types of users of international Egyptian academic articles indexed in Scopus across four major fields: health sciences, life sciences, physical sciences and social sciences inside and outside academia. The aim is to determine the impact and use of international Egyptian academic articles in Mendeley compared to their citation impact and to explore whether there is any correlation between Mendeley readership counts and the citation indicators for these publications. Furthermore, this study analyses readers’ categories and discovers their country locations according to the data retrieved from Mendeley profiles. The data for this study are collected from the Scopus database. Webometric Analyst 2.0 is used to retrieve Mendeley readership statistics for all collected articles. This information will help in understanding how and to what extent Mendeley readership metrics are applicable in assessing the publications of Egyptian authors and in understanding the usage versus citation pattern and impact of Egyptian scientific outputs on global society. The results indicate that the majority of readers in all disciplines are Ph.D. students, master’s students, and post-graduate students; however, other types of academics are also represented. The findings also indicate that the highest correlations between citations and Mendeley readership counts are found for the types of users who frequently author academic papers, except for professors in some sub-disciplines. Regarding country locations, Egyptian international publications are mostly used by users from more than 100 countries worldwide. However, the majority in every field are from the USA. Overall, this study concludes that Egyptian researchers have great international influence on global society. The study suggests that Mendeley readership may reflect usage similarly to conventional citation impacts if the data are limited to readers who are also authors, without the delay of influence measured by citation indicators. Meanwhile, Mendeley data can disclose the invisible impact of research publications, such as educational value for non-author users inside academia or the impact of research papers on practice for users outside academia. Finally, Mendeley readership statistics can reflect the distribution of users in various countries and potential readers worldwide, identify the invisible impact of the research output per country on global society, and be used as a complementary and informative tool for citation databases in explicating the influence of scientific outputs.


Altmetrics Mendeley Egyptian research Research impact Readership analysis 


  1. Armbruster, C. (2008). Access, usage and citation metrics: What function for digital libraries and repositories in research evaluation? Available at SSRN 1088453.Google Scholar
  2. Barnett, G. A., & Fink, E. L. (2008). Impact of the internet and scholar age distribution on academic citation age. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(4), 526–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brettle, A. J., & Long, A. F. (2001). Comparison of bibliographic databases for information on the rehabilitation of people with severe mental illness. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 89(4), 353.Google Scholar
  4. Cho, J. (2017). A comparative study of the impact of Korean research articles in four academic fields using altmetrics. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 18(1), 38–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2′EU). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Erfanmanesh, M., & Didegah, F. (2013). A comparison of Web of Science and Scopus for Iranian publications and citation impact. International Journal of Information Science and Management (IJISM), 11(1), 11–27.Google Scholar
  8. Fairclough, R., & Thelwall, M. (2015). National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 845–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gingras, Y., Lariviere, V., Macaluso, B., & Robitaille, J.-P. (2008). The effects of aging on researchers’ publication and citation patterns. PLoS ONE, 3(12), e4048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haunschild, R., Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). Networks of reader and country status: An analysis of Mendeley reader statistics. PeerJ Computer Science, 1, e32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2014). Mendeley as the source of global readership by students and postdocs? In IATUL conference, Espoo, Finland, June 2–5 2014. Retrieved from
  12. 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
  13. Jamali, H. R., & Nicholas, D. (2006). Communication and information-seeking behavior of Ph.D. students in physicists and astronomy. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, T. H., Donovan, C., & Hanney, S. (2012). Tracing the wider impacts of biomedical research: A literature search to develop a novel citation categorisation technique. Scientometrics, 93(1), 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Konkiel, S., & Guichard, S. (2018). Altmetrics:“Big data” that map the influence of New Zealand research. Library Hi Tech News, 35(4), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., & Bergeron, P. (2013). In their own image? A comparison of doctoral students’ and faculty members’ referencing behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1045–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li, J., Burnham, J. F., Lemley, T., & Britton, R. M. (2010). Citation analysis: Comparison of web of science®, scopus™, SciFinder®, and google scholar. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 7(3), 196–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li, X., & Thelwall, M. (2012). F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. In Paper presented at the proceedings of the 17th international conference on science and technology indicators.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Maleki, A. (2015). Mendeley readership impact of academic articles of Iran. In Paper presented at the ISSI.Google Scholar
  21. Mas Bleda, A., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., & Aguillo, I. (2013). European highly cited scientists’ presence in the social web. In Paper presented at the 14th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference (ISSI 2013).Google Scholar
  22. Minasny, B., Hartemink, A. E., McBratney, A., & Jang, H.-J. (2013). Citations and the h index of soil researchers and journals in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. PeerJ, 1, e183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moed, H. F. (2006). Citation analysis in research evaluation (Vol. 9). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.
  28. Shrivastava, R., & Mahajan, P. (2016). Relationship between citation counts and Mendeley readership metrics: A case of top 100 cited papers in Physics. New Library World, 117(3/4), 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thelwall, M. (2012). Journal impact evaluation: A webometric perspective. Scientometrics, 92(2), 429–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thelwall, M. (2017). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014a). Assessing the impact of the publications read by the different Mendeley users: Is there any different pattern among users? In IATUL conference, Espoo, Finland, June 2-5 2014. Retrieved from
  34. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014b). How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1491–1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2015). Do Mendeley readership counts help to filter highly cited WoS publications better than average citation impact of journals (JCS)? arxiv preprint arXiv:1507.02093.
  36. Zahedi, Z., & van Eck, N. J. (2018). Exploring topics of interest of Mendeley users. Journal of Altmetrics, 1(1), 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Library and Information StudiesMinia UniversityMinyaEgypt

Personalised recommendations