Abstract
Reading academic publications is a key scholarly activity. Scholars accessing and recording academic publications online are producing new types of readership data. These include publisher, repository, and academic social network download statistics as well as online reference manager records. This chapter discusses the use of download and reference manager data for research evaluation and library collection development. The focus is on the validity and application of readership data as an impact indicator for academic publications across different disciplines. Mendeley is particularly promising in this regard, although all data sources are not subjected to rigorous quality control and can be manipulated.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
M.J. Kurtz, J. Bollen: Usage bibliometrics, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 44(1), 1–64 (2010)
S. Haustein: Readership metrics. In: Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact, ed. by B. Cronin, C. Sugimoto (MIT Press, Cambridge 2014) pp. 327–344
M. Thelwall, K. Kousha: ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship?, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66(5), 876–889 (2015)
C. Tenopir, D.W. King, M.T. Clarke, K. Na, X. Zhou: Journal reading patterns and preferences of pediatricians, J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 95(1), 56–63 (2007)
F.A. McAlister, I. Graham, G.W. Karr, A. Laupacis: Evidence-based medicine and the practicing clinician, J. Gen. Int. Med. 14(4), 236–242 (1999)
L.M. Schilling, J.F. Steiner, K. Lundahl, R.J. Anderson: Residents' patient-specific clinical questions: opportunities for evidence-based learning, Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll. 80(1), 51–56 (2005)
A. Haque, P. Ginsparg: Positional effects on citation and readership in arXiv, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60(11), 2203–2218 (2009)
A. Grabowsky: Expanding access: An evaluation of ReadCube access as an ILL alternative, Med. Ref. Serv. Q. 35(1), 16–26 (2016)
E. Emrani, A. Moradi-Salari, H.R. Jamali: Usage data, e-journal selection, and negotiations: An Iranian consortium experience, Ser. Rev. 36(2), 86–92 (2010)
A.F.J. van Raan: In matters of quantitative studies of science the fault of theorists is offering too little and asking too much, Scientometrics 43(1), 129–139 (1998)
J. Duy, L. Vaughan: Can electronic journal usage data replace citation data as a measure of journal use? An empirical examination, J. Acad. Librar. 32(5), 512–517 (2006)
I. Rowlands, D. Nicholas: The missing link: Journal usage metrics, Aslib Proc. 59(3), 222–228 (2007)
P.L.K. Gross, E.M. Gross: College libraries and chemical education, Science 66(1713), 385–389 (1927), https://doi.org/10.1126/science.66.1713.385
H.D. White, K.W. McCain: Bibliometrics, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 24, 119–186 (1989)
L. Egghe, R. Rousseau: The influence of publication delays on the observed aging distribution of scientific literature, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 51(2), 158–165 (2000)
D. King, C. Tenopir, M. Clarke: Measuring total reading of journal articles, D-Lib Mag. (2006), https://doi.org/10.1045/october2006-king
P.M. Davis: Information-seeking behavior of chemists: A transaction log analysis of referral URLs, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 55(4), 326–332 (2004)
T. Stankus, B. Rice: Handle with Care, Collect. Manag. 4(1/2), 95–110 (1982)
M.Y. Tsay: The relationship between journal use in a medical library and citation use, Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 86(1), 31–39 (1998)
N.J. Butkovich: Use studies: A selective review, Libr. Resour. Tech. Serv. 40(4), 359–368 (1996)
R.N. Kostoff: The principles and practices of peer review, Sci. Eng. Ethics 3(1), 19–34 (1997)
P. Wouters: Citation cycles and peer review cycles, Scientometrics 38(1), 39–55 (1997)
U.W. Jayasinghe, H.W. Marsh, N. Bond: A multilevel cross-classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: The effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings, J.R. Stat. Soc. A (Stat. Soc.) 166(3), 279–300 (2003)
HEFCE: Research Excellence Framework, Vol. 2011 (HEFCE, London 2011)
Advisory Board for the Research Councils (ABRC): Peer Review. A Report to the Advisory Board for the Research Councils from the Working Group on Peer Review (ABRC, London 1990)
R. Smith: Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals, J. R. Soc. Med. 99(4), 178–182 (2006)
C.J. Lee, C.R. Sugimoto, G. Zhang, B. Cronin: Bias in peer review, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 64(1), 2–17 (2013)
I. Welch: Referee recommendations, Rev. Financ. Stud. 27(9), 2773–2804 (2014)
A.F.J. van Raan: The Pandora's Box of citation analysis: Measuring scientific excellence – the last evil? In: The Web of Knowledge: A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield, ed. by E. Garfield, B. Cronin, H.B. Atkins (ASIS Monograph Series: Information Today, Medford 2000) pp. 301–320
L. Egghe: Mathematical relations between impact factors and average number of citations, Inf. Process. Manag. 24(5), 567–576 (1988)
R.P. Dellavalle, L.M. Schilling, M.A. Rodriguez, H.J. Van de Sompel: Bollen: Refining dermatology journal impact factors using PageRank, J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 57(1), 116–119 (2007)
T. Opthof: Sense and nonsense about the impact factor, Cardiovasc. Res. 33(1), 1–7 (1997)
S.K. Boell, C.S. Wilson: Journal impact factors for evaluating scientific performance: Use of h-like indicators, Scientometrics 82(3), 613–626 (2010)
L. Waltman, N.J. van Eck, T.N. van Leeuwen, M.S. Visser, A.F.J. van Raan: Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations, J. Informetrics 5(1), 37–47 (2011)
M. Thelwall: Does Mendeley provide evidence of the educational value of journal articles?, Learn. Publ. 30(2), 107–113 (2017)
M. Thelwall: Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation, J. Informetrics 11(1), 128–151 (2017)
J.E. Hirsch: An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102(46), 16569 (2005)
R. Merton: The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago 1973)
M.H. MacRoberts, B.R. MacRoberts: Problems of citation analysis: A critical review, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 40(5), 342–349 (1989)
M.H. MacRoberts, B.R. MacRoberts: Problems of citation analysis, Scientometrics 36(3), 435–444 (1996)
R.N. Kostoff: The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation, Scientometrics 43(1), 27–43 (1998)
F. Merkx, I. van der Weijden, A.-M. Oostveen, P. van den Besselaar, J. Spaapen: Evaluation of research in context: A quick scan of an emerging field (Rathenau Institute, Department of Science System Assessment, The Hague 2007)
C. Schloegl, W.G. Stock: Impact and relevance of LIS journals: A scientometric analysis of international and German-language LIS journals – Citation analysis versus reader survey, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 55(13), 1155–1168 (2004)
N.L. Bennett, L.L. Casebeer, R.E. Kristofco, S.M. Strasser: Physicians' Internet information-seeking behaviors, J. Contin. Educ. Health Prof. 24(1), 31–38 (2004)
G. Lewison: From biomedical research to health improvement, Scientometrics 54(2), 179–192 (2002)
W.G. Stock: The inflation of impact factors of scientific journals, ChemPhysChem 10(13), 2193–2196 (2009)
C. Tenopir, D.W. King: Towards Electronic Journals: Realities for Scientists, Librarians, and Publishers (Special Libraries Association, Washington 2000)
NSF: Proposal and award policies and procedures guide; Changes to the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Effective January 14, 2013 Virginia. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_index.jsp (2013)
H. Piwowar: Altmetrics: Value all research products, Nature 493(7431), 159–159 (2013)
HEFCE (2011): Decisions on assessing research impact. Higher Education Funding Council for England. https://www.ref.ac.uk/2014/media/ref/content/pub/assessmentframeworkandguidanceonsubmissions/GOS%20including%20addendum.pdf
G. Abramo, T. Cicero, C.A. D'Angelo: Assessing the varying level of impact measurement accuracy as a function of the citation window length, J. Informetrics 5(4), 659–667 (2011)
L. Drooge, P. Besselaar, G. Elsen, M. Haas: Evaluating the Societal Relevance of Academic Research: A Guide (Rathenau Instituut, The Hague 2010), http://depot.knaw.nl/9026/
S.P.L. de Jong, P. van Arensbergen, F. Daemen, B. van der Meulen, P. van den Besselaar: Evaluation of research in context: An approach and two cases, Res. Eval. 20(1), 61–72 (2011)
J. Priem, D. Taraborelli, P. Groth, C. Neylon: Alt-metrics: A manifesto. (2010) Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto
L. Czerniewicz, C. Kell, M. Willmers, T. King: Changing Research Communication Practices and Open Scholarship: A Framework for Analysis. Scholarly Communication in Africa Programme. Retrieved from https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/9068 (2014)
L. Van der Vaart, M. Van Berchum, R. Bruce, M. Burgess, G. Hanganu, N. Jacobs, D. Lecarpentier, S. Pinfield, P. Stokes: ‘Open' as the default modus operandi for research and higher education. European Network for Co-ordination of Policies and Programmes on e-Infrastructures (2013) Available at: http://e-infranet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/e-InfraNet-Open-as-the-Default-Modus-Operandi-for-Research-and-Higher-Education.pdf.
B. Cronin, H.W. Snyder, H. Rosenbaum, A. Martinson, E. Callahan: Invoked on the Web, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 49(14), 1319–1328 (1998)
S. Haustein: Taking a multidimensional approach toward journal evaluation. In: Proceedings of the ISSI Conference, Vol. 2 (ISSI Society, Durban 2011) pp. 280–291
S. Haustein: Multidimensional Journal Evaluation Analyzing Scientific Periodicals beyond the Impact Factor (De Gruyter, Saur, Berlin, Boston 2012)
R. Rousseau: Exponential decline in the use distribution of medical journals, J. Documentation 56(4), 454–455 (2000)
M.J. Kurtz, G. Eichhorn, A. Accomazzi, C. Grant, M. Demleitner, S.S. Murray, N. Martimbeau, B. Elwell: The bibliometric properties of article readership information, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 56(2), 111–128 (2005)
COUNTER: About COUNTER. Retrieved January 1, 2017, from https://www.projectcounter.org/about (2017)
O. Pesch: Implementing SUSHI and COUNTER: A primer for librarians, Ser. Librar. 69(2), 107–125 (2015)
H.D. White, S.K. Boell, H. Yu, M. Davis, C.S. Wilson, F.T. Cole: Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60(6), 1083–1096 (2009)
J. Bollen, H. Van de Sompel: Usage impact factor: The effects of sample characteristics on usage-based impact metrics, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59(1), 136–149 (2008)
T.V. Perneger: Relation between online “hit counts” and subsequent citations: Prospective study of research papers in the BMJ, Br. Med. J. 329(7465), 546–547 (2004)
T. Brody, S. Harnad, L. Carr: Earlier Web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 57(8), 1060–1072 (2006)
H. Chu, T. Krichel, N. Blvd: Downloads vs. citations: Relationships, contributing factors and beyond. In: Proc. 11th Int. Soc. Scientometr. Informetr. Conf., ed. by H.F. Moed (CINDOC, Madrid 2007) pp. 207–215
K.-K. Yan, M. Gerstein: The spread of scientific information: insights from the web usage statistics in PLoS article-level metrics, PLoS ONE 6(5), e19917 (2011)
H.F. Moed: Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 56(10), 1088–1097 (2005)
H.F. Moed, G. Halevi: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(2), 412–431 (2016)
L. Vaughan, J. Tang, R. Yang: Investigating disciplinary differences in the relationships between citations and downloads, Scientometrics 111(3), 1533–1545 (2017)
J. Wan, P. Hua, R. Rousseau, X. Sun: The journal download immediacy index (DII): Experiences using a Chinese full-text database, Scientometrics 82(3), 555–566 (2010)
J.L. Wulff, N.D. Nixon: Quality markers and use of electronic journals in an academic health sciences library, J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 92(3), 315–322 (2004)
S. Darmoni, F. Roussel: Reading factor: A new bibliometric criterion for managing digital libraries, J. Med. Libr. 90(3), 323–327 (2002)
J. Bollen, H.M.A. Van de Sompel Rodriguez: Towards usage-based impact metrics. In: Proc. 8th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conf. Digit. Libr (ACM, New York 2008) pp. 231–240
D. Duin, D. King, P. Van Den Besselaar: Identifying audiences of e-infrastructures-tools for measuring impact, PloS one 7(12), e50943 (2012)
S. Haustein, T. Siebenlist: Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage, J. Informetrics 5(3), 446–457 (2011)
K. Anderson, J. Sack, L. Krauss, L. O'Keefe: Publishing online-only peer-reviewed biomedical literature: Three years of citation, author perception, and usage experience, J. Electron. Publ. (2001), https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0006.303
C. Zimmermann: Academic rankings with RePEc, Econometrics 1(3), 249–280 (2013)
C. Neylon, S. Wu: Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact, PLoS Biol. 7(11), 6 (2009)
K.J. Holmberg: Altmetrics for Information Professionals: Past, Present and Future (Chandos, Oxford 2015)
P. Wouters, R. Costas: Users, narcissism and control – tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Image Rochester NY, 50 pages. Retrieved from http://www.surffoundation.nl/en/publicaties/Pages/Users_narcissism_control.aspx (2012)
J. Liu, E. Adie: Five challenges in altmetrics: A toolmaker's perspective, Bull. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 39, 31–34 (2013)
M. Fenner: What can article-level metrics do for you?, PLoS Biol. 11(10), e1001687 (2013), http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001687
J. Priem, H.A. Piwowar, B.M. Hemminger: Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact, Arxiv Preprint arXiv:1203.4745 (2012) Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/html/1203.4745v1
R.R. Winslow, S.L. Skripsky, S.L. Kelly: Not just for citations: Assessing Zotero while reassessing research. In: Information literacy: Research and collaboration across disciplines, ed. by B.J. D'Angelo, S. Jamieson, B. Maid, J.R. Walker (WAC Clearinghouse and University Press of Colorado, Fort Collins 2016) pp. 287–304
G. Eysenbach: Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact, J. Med. Internet Res. 13(4), e123 (2011)
D. Benz, A. Hotho, R. Jäschke, B. Krause, F. Mitzlaff, C. Schmitz, G. Stumme: The social bookmark and publication management system Bibsonomy, VLDB J. – Int. J. Very Large Data Bases 19(6), 849–875 (2010)
R. Jäschke, A. Hotho, C. Schmitz, M. Grahl, B. Krause, G. Stumme: Organizing publications and bookmarks in BibSonomy, CEUR Workshop Proc. 273, 2–5 (2007)
J.L. Ortega: Social Network Sites for Scientists: A Quantitative Survey (Chandos, Cambridge 2016)
Á. Borrego, J. Fry: Measuring researchers' use of scholarly information through social bookmarking data: A case study of BibSonomy, J. Inf. Sci. 38(3), 297–308 (2012)
S. Reher, S. Haustein: Social bookmarking in STM: Putting services to the acid test, Online Lead. Mag. Inf. Prof. 34(6), 34–42 (2010)
T. Bogers, A. Van Den Bosch: Recommending scientific articles using citeulike. In: Proc. 2008 ACM Conf. Recomm. Syst. RecSys 08 (ACM, Lausanne 2008) pp. 287–290
V. Henning, J. Reichelt: Mendeley-A Last.fm for research? In: IEEE 4th Int. Conf. eSci. (eScience'08) (IEEE, Los Alamitos 2008) pp. 327–328
W. Jeng, D. He, J. Jiang: User participation in an academic social networking service: A survey of open group users on Mendeley, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66(5), 890–904 (2015)
W. Gunn: Social signals reflect academic impact: What it means when a scholar adds a paper to Mendeley, Inf. Stand. Q. 25(2), 33–39 (2013)
M. Thelwall, N. Maflahi: Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? An analysis of Mendeley readers, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66(6), 1124–1135 (2015)
M. Thelwall: Web Indicators for Research Evaluation: A Practical Guide (Morgan Claypool, San Rafael 2017)
X. Li, M. Thelwall, D. Giustini: Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement, Scientometrics 91(2), 461–471 (2012)
J. Bar-Ilan: JASIST 2001–2010, Bull. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 38(6), 24–28 (2012)
S. Haustein, V. Larivière, M. Thelwall, D. Amyot, I. Peters: Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ?, Inf. Technol. 56(5), 207–215 (2014)
M. Thelwall, P. Wilson: Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(8), 1962–1972 (2016)
E. Mohammadi, M. Thelwall, S. Haustein, V. Larivière: Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66(9), 1832–1846 (2015)
E. Mohammadi, M. Thelwall: Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(8), 1627–1638 (2014)
B. Hammarfelt: Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities, Scientometrics 101(2), 1419–1430 (2014)
Z. Zahedi, R. Costas, P. Wouters: How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of “alternative metrics” in scientific publications, Scientometrics 101(2), 1491–1513 (2014)
K. Kousha, M. Thelwall: Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books?, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(3), 566–581 (2016)
P. Sud, M. Thelwall: Evaluating altmetrics, Scientometrics 98(2), 1131–1143 (2014)
X. Li, M. Thelwall: F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. In: 17th Int. Conf. Sci. Technol. Ind, Vol. 2 (2012) pp. 451–551
M. Thelwall: Do Mendeley reader counts indicate the value of arts and humanities research?, J. Librariansh. Inf. Sci. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617732381
M. Thelwall: Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields?, Scientometrics 113(3), 1721–1731 (2017)
K.J. Aduku, M. Thelwall, K. Kousha: Do Mendeley reader counts reflect the scholarly impact of conference papers? An investigation of computer science and engineering, Scientometrics 112(1), 573–581 (2017)
HEFCE: The Metric Tide Supplementary Report II: Correlation analysis of REF2014 scores and metrics (HEFCE, London 2015)
M. Thelwall, N. Maflahi: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(4), 960–966 (2016)
K. Weller, I. Peters: Citations in Web 2.0. In: Science and the Internet, ed. by A. Tokar, M. Beurskens, S. Keuneke, M. Mahrt, I. Peters, C. Puschmann, K. Weller (Düsseldorf Univ. Press, Düsseldorf 2012) pp. 209–222
D. MacMillan: Mendeley: Teaching scholarly communication and collaboration through social networking, Libr. Manag. 33(8/9), 561–569 (2012)
E. Mohammadi, M. Thelwall, K. Kousha: Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(5), 1198–1209 (2016)
M. Thelwall: Why do papers have many Mendeley readers but few Scopus-indexed citations and vice versa?, J. Librariansh. Inf. Sci. 49(2), 144–151 (2017)
V. Larivière, C.R. Sugimoto, P. Bergeron: In their own image? A comparison of doctoral students' and faculty members' referencing behavior, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 64(5), 1045–1054 (2013)
C. Tenopir, D.W. King, J. Spencer, L. Wu: Variations in article seeking and reading patterns of academics: What makes a difference?, Libr. Inf. Sci. Res. 31(3), 139–148 (2009)
S. Korobili, A. Malliari, S. Zapounidou: Factors that influence information-seeking behavior: The case of Greek graduate students, J. Acad. Librariansh. 37(2), 155–165 (2011)
E. Whitmire: Disciplinary differences and undergraduates' information-seeking behavior, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 53(8), 631–638 (2002)
A. Mas-Bleda, M. Thelwall, K. Kousha, I.F. Aguillo: Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web?, Scientometrics 101(1), 337–356 (2014)
N. Maflahi, M. Thelwall: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(1), 191–199 (2016)
M. Thelwall, P. Sud: Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(12), 3036–3050 (2016)
Z. Zahedi, R. Costas, P. Wouters: Do Mendeley readership counts help to filter highly cited WoS publications better than average citation impact of journals (JCS)? In: Proc. 15th Int. Conf. Int. Soc. Scientometr. Informetr, ed. by A.A. Salah, Y. Tonta, A.A.A. Salah, C. Sugimoto, U. Al (Boğaziçi University Printhouse, Istanbul 2015) pp. 16–25
N. Maflahi, M. Thelwall: How quickly do publications get read? The evolution of Mendeley reader counts for new articles, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 69(1), 158–167 (2018)
R. Fairclough, M. Thelwall: National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers, J. Informetrics 9(4), 845–859 (2015)
M. Thelwall, K. Kousha, A. Dinsmore, K. Dolby: Alternative metric indicators for funding scheme evaluations, Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 68(1), 2–18 (2016)
A. Dinsmore, L. Allen, K. Dolby: Alternative perspectives on impact: The potential of ALMs and altmetrics to inform funders about research impact, PLoS Biol. 12(11), e1002003 (2014)
P. Kudlow, M. Cockerill, D. Toccalino, D.B. Dziadyk, A. Rutledge, A. Shachak, G. Eysenbach: Online distribution channel increases article usage on Mendeley: A randomized controlled trial, Scientometrics 112(3), 1537–1556 (2017)
H. Small: Update on science mapping: Creating large document spaces, Scientometrics 38(2), 275–293 (1997)
J. Jiang, D. He, C. Ni: Social reference: Aggregating online usage of scientific literature in CiteULike for clustering academic resources. In: Proc. 11th Annu. Int. ACM/IEEE Jt. Conf. Digit. Libr. – JCDL '11 (ACM, New York 2011) p. 401
P. Kraker, C. Körner, K. Jack, M. Granitzer: Harnessing user library statistics for research evaluation and knowledge domain visualization. In: Proc. 21st Int. Conf. Companion World Wide Web WWW 12 Companion (ACM, Lyon 2012) p. 1017
T. Heck, I. Peters, W.G. Stock: Testing collaborative filtering against co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling for academic author recommendation. In: Proc. 3rd ACM Workshop Recomm. Syst. Soc. Web, ed. by B. Mobasher, J. Burke (ACM, New York 2011) pp. 16–23
É. Archambault, D. Campbell, Y. Gingras, V. Larivière: Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60(7), 1320–1326 (2009)
M. Thelwall: Microsoft Academic: A multidisciplinary comparison of citation counts with Scopus and Mendeley for 29 journals, J. Informetrics 11(4), 1201–1212 (2017)
K. Kousha, M. Thelwall, M. Abdoli: Goodreads reviews to assess the wider impacts of books, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 68(8), 2004–2016 (2017)
A. Mas-Bleda, M. Thelwall: Can alternative indicators overcome language biases in citation counts? A comparison of Spanish and UK research, Scientometrics 109(3), 2007–2030 (2016)
M. Fenner: Altmetrics and other novel measures for scientific impact. In: Opening Science, ed. by S. Bartling, S. Friesike (Springer, Cham 2014) pp. 179–189
S. Konkiel: Altmetrics: A 21st-century solution to determining research quality, Online Search, https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/17147, July/August (2013)
L. Bornmann, R. Haunschild: Which people use which scientific papers? An evaluation of data from F1000 and Mendeley, J. Informetrics 9(3), 477–487 (2015)
H.R. Jamali: Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles, Scientometrics 112(1), 241–254 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2291-4
K. Jordan: Exploring the ResearchGate score as an academic metric: Reflections and implications for practice. In: Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web (ASCW'15), Oxford (2015)
K. Jordan: Understanding the structure and role of academics' ego-networks on social networking sites, PhD Thesis (The Open University, Milton Keynes 2017), http://oro.open.ac.uk/48259/
E. Orduna-Malea, A. Martín-Martín, M. Thelwall, E. Delgado López-Cózar: Do ResearchGate Scores create ghost academic reputations?, Scientometrics (2017), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2396-9
M. Thelwall, K. Kousha: ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size, and impact, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 68(2), 468–479 (2017)
M. Thelwall, K. Kousha: ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations?, Scientometrics (2017), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2400-4
M. Thelwall, K. Kousha: Web indicators for research evaluation, part 1: Citations and links to academic articles from the web, Prof. Inf. 24(5), 587–606 (2015)
M. Thelwall, K. Kousha: Academia.edu: Social network or academic network?, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(4), 721–731 (2014)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M. (2019). Readership Data and Research Impact. In: Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch, U., Thelwall, M. (eds) Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Springer Handbooks. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_29
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_29
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02510-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02511-3
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)