Mendeley reader counts are a good source of early impact evidence for the life and natural sciences articles because they are abundant, appear before citations, and correlate moderately or strongly with citations in the long term. Early studies have found less promising results for the humanities and this article assesses whether the situation has now changed. Using Mendeley reader counts for articles in 12 arts and humanities Scopus subcategories, the results show that Mendeley reader counts reflect Scopus citation counts in most arts and humanities as strongly as in other areas of scholarship. Thus, Mendeley can be used as an early citation impact indicator in the arts and humanities, although it is unclear whether reader or citation counts reflect the underlying value of arts and humanities research.
BasriMPatakAA (2015) Exploring Indonesian students’ perception on Mendeley Reference Management Software in academic writing. In: 2nd International conference on information technology, computer, and electrical engineering (ICITACEE2015), Semarang, Indonesia,16–18October2015, pp. 8–13. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.
2.
BelfioreEUpchurchA (2013) Introduction: Reframing the value debate for the humanities. In: BelfioreEUpchurchA (eds) Humanities in the Twenty-First Century: Beyond Utility and Markets. Berlin: Springer, pp. 1–13.
3.
BorregoÁFryJ (2012) Measuring researchers’ use of scholarly information through social bookmarking data: A case study of BibSonomy. Journal of Information Science38(3): 297–308.
4.
ChoJ (2017) A comparative study of the impact of Korean research articles in four academic fields using altmetrics. Performance Measurement and Metrics18(1): 38–51.
5.
CobbledickS (1996) The information-seeking behavior of artists: Exploratory interviews. Library Quarterly66(4): 343–372.
6.
CohenJ (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
DelgadilloRLynchBP (1999) Future historians: Their quest for information. College & Research Libraries60(3): 245–259.
8.
EarnshawRALiggettSExcellPS (2015) Evaluating the REF2014 results in art and design. In: Internet technologies and applications (ITA2015), Wrexham, UK, 8–11 September 2015, pp. 514–519. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.
9.
ErdtMNagarajanASinSCJet al. (2016) Altmetrics: An analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media. Scientometrics109(2): 1117–1166.
10.
FaircloughRThelwallM (2015a) More precise methods for national research citation impact comparisons. Journal of Informetrics9(4): 895–906.
11.
FaircloughRThelwallM (2015b) National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers. Journal of Informetrics9(4): 845–859.
12.
GlänzelWThijsB (2004) Does co-authorship inflate the share of self-citations?Scientometrics61(3): 395–404.
13.
GunnW (2013) Social signals reflect academic impact: What it means when a scholar adds a paper to Mendeley. Information Standards Quarterly25(2): 33–39.
14.
HammarfeltB (2014) Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics101(2): 1419–1430.
15.
HausteinSLarivièreVThelwallMet al. (2014) Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ?IT-Information Technology56(5): 207–215.
HemphillJF (2003) Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist58(1): 78–80.
18.
HicksD (2004) The four literatures of social science. In: MoedHFet al. (eds) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands, pp. 473–496.
19.
LarivièreVArchambaultÉGingrasYet al. (2006) The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology57(8): 997–1004.
20.
MaflahiNThelwallM (2016) When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology67(1): 191–199.
21.
MalekiA (2015) Mendeley readership impact of academic articles of Iran. In: 15th International conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI2015), Istanbul, Turkey, 29 June–3 July 2015, pp. 109–110. Istanbul: Bogazici University Press.
22.
MartinKQuan-HaaseA (2016) The role of agency in historians’ experiences of serendipity in physical and digital information environments. Journal of Documentation72(6): 1008–1026.
23.
MertonRK (1973) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
MohammadiEThelwallM (2014) Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology65(8): 1627–1638.
25.
MohammadiEThelwallMKoushaK (2016) Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology67(5): 1198–1209.
26.
MohammadiEThelwallMHausteinSet al. (2015) Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology66(9): 1832–1846.
27.
NederhofAZwaanRDe BruinRet al. (1989) Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social and behavioural sciences: A comparative study. Scientometrics15(5–6): 423–435.
28.
NederhofAJ (2006) Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics66(1): 81–100.
29.
PooladianABorregoÁ (2017) Twenty years of readership of library and information science literature under Mendeley’s microscope. Performance Measurement and Metrics18(1): 67–77.
30.
PriemJTaraborelliDGrothPet al. (2010) Altmetrics: A Manifesto. Available at: http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/ (accessed 3 July 2017).
31.
ThelwallM (2016a) Are there too many uncited articles? Zero inflated variants of the discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions. Journal of Informetrics10(2): 622–633.
32.
ThelwallM (2016b) Interpreting correlations between citation counts and other indicators. Scientometrics108(1): 337–347.
33.
ThelwallM (2017) Why do papers have many Mendeley readers but few Scopus-indexed citations and vice versa?Journal of Librarianship and Information Science49(2): 144–151.
34.
ThelwallM (2017) Does Mendeley provide evidence of the educational value of journal articles?Learned Publishing30(2): 107–113. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1076
35.
ThelwallMDelgadoM (2015) Arts and humanities research evaluation: No metrics please, just data. Journal of Documentation71(4): 817–833.
36.
ThelwallMSudP (2016) Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology57(6): 3036–3050.
37.
VargasSHristakevaMJackK (2016) Mendeley: Recommendations for researchers. In: 10th ACM conference on recommender systems, Boston, MA, USA, 15–19 September 2016, pp. 365–365. New York: ACM Press.
38.
WaltmanLvan EckNJ (2015) Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method. Journal of Informetrics9(4): 872–894.
39.
WaltmanLvan EckNJvan LeeuwenTNet al. (2011) Towards a new crown indicator: An empirical analysis. Scientometrics87(3): 467–481.
40.
WangJ (2013) Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics94(3): 851–872.
41.
WoutersPCostasR (2012) Users, narcissism and control: Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. In: Science and technology indicators 2012 (STI2012), pp. 847–857. Utrecht, The Netherlands: SURFfoundation.
42.
ZahediZCostasRWoutersP (2015) Do Mendeley readership counts help to filter highly cited WoS publications better than average citation impact of journals (JCS)? In: 15th International conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI2015), Istanbul, Turkey, 29 June–3 July 2015, pp. 1–10. Istanbul: Bogazici University Press.
ZollerDDoerfelSJäschkeRet al. (2016) Posted, visited, exported: Altmetrics in the social tagging system BibSonomy. Journal of Informetrics10(3): 732–749.
45.
ZuccalaAGunsR (2013) Comparing book citations in humanities journals to library holdings: Scholarly use versus perceived cultural benefit. In: 14th International conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI2013), pp. 353–360. Available at: http://ebrp.elsevier.com/pdf/2012_Proposal6_Zuccala_Guns.pdf (accessed 3 July 2017).
