Do Mendeley reader counts indicate the value of arts and humanities research?

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Altmetrics arts humanities Mendeley research evaluation scientometrics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Basri

Patak

(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,16–18 October 2015, pp. 8–13. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.

Belfiore

Upchurch

(2013) Introduction: Reframing the value debate for the humanities. In: Belfiore

Upchurch

(eds) Humanities in the Twenty-First Century: Beyond Utility and Markets. Berlin: Springer, pp. 1–13.

Borrego

Fry

(2012) Measuring researchers’ use of scholarly information through social bookmarking data: A case study of BibSonomy. Journal of Information Science 38(3): 297–308.

Cho

(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.

Cobbledick

(1996) The information-seeking behavior of artists: Exploratory interviews. Library Quarterly 66(4): 343–372.

Cohen

(1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Delgadillo

Lynch

(1999) Future historians: Their quest for information. College & Research Libraries 60(3): 245–259.

Earnshaw

Liggett

Excell

(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.

Erdt

Nagarajan

Sin

SCJ

et al. (2016) Altmetrics: An analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media. Scientometrics 109(2): 1117–1166.

10.

Fairclough

Thelwall

(2015a) More precise methods for national research citation impact comparisons. Journal of Informetrics 9(4): 895–906.

11.

Fairclough

Thelwall

(2015b) National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers. Journal of Informetrics 9(4): 845–859.

12.

Glänzel

Thijs

(2004) Does co-authorship inflate the share of self-citations? Scientometrics 61(3): 395–404.

13.

Gunn

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

14.

Hammarfelt

(2014) Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics 101(2): 1419–1430.

15.

Haustein

Larivière

Thelwall

et al. (2014) Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ? IT-Information Technology 56(5): 207–215.

16.

HEFCE (2015) Supplementary Report II: Correlation Analysis of REF2014 Scores and Metrics. Available at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/year/2015/metrictide/ (accessed 3 July 2017).

17.

Hemphill

(2003) Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist 58(1): 78–80.

18.

Hicks

(2004) The four literatures of social science. In: Moed

et al. (eds) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands, pp. 473–496.

19.

Larivière

Archambault

Gingras

et 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 Technology 57(8): 997–1004.

20.

Maflahi

Thelwall

(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.

21.

Maleki

(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.

Martin

Quan-Haase

(2016) The role of agency in historians’ experiences of serendipity in physical and digital information environments. Journal of Documentation 72(6): 1008–1026.

23.

Merton

(1973) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

24.

Mohammadi

Thelwall

(2014) Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 65(8): 1627–1638.

25.

Mohammadi

Thelwall

Kousha

(2016) Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67(5): 1198–1209.

26.

Mohammadi

Thelwall

Haustein

et al. (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.

27.

Nederhof

Zwaan

De Bruin

et al. (1989) Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social and behavioural sciences: A comparative study. Scientometrics 15(5–6): 423–435.

28.

Nederhof

(2006) Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics 66(1): 81–100.

29.

Pooladian

Borrego

(2017) Twenty years of readership of library and information science literature under Mendeley’s microscope. Performance Measurement and Metrics 18(1): 67–77.

30.

Priem

Taraborelli

Groth

et al. (2010) Altmetrics: A Manifesto. Available at: http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/ (accessed 3 July 2017).

31.

Thelwall

(2016a) Are there too many uncited articles? Zero inflated variants of the discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions. Journal of Informetrics 10(2): 622–633.

32.

Thelwall

(2016b) Interpreting correlations between citation counts and other indicators. Scientometrics 108(1): 337–347.

33.

Thelwall

(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.

34.

Thelwall

(2017) Does Mendeley provide evidence of the educational value of journal articles? Learned Publishing 30(2): 107–113. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1076

35.

Thelwall

Delgado

(2015) Arts and humanities research evaluation: No metrics please, just data. Journal of Documentation 71(4): 817–833.

36.

Thelwall

Sud

(2016) Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 57(6): 3036–3050.

37.

Vargas

Hristakeva

Jack

(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.

Waltman

van Eck

(2015) Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method. Journal of Informetrics 9(4): 872–894.

39.

Waltman

van Eck

van Leeuwen

et al. (2011) Towards a new crown indicator: An empirical analysis. Scientometrics 87(3): 467–481.

40.

Wang

(2013) Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics 94(3): 851–872.

41.

Wouters

Costas

(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.

Zahedi

Costas

Wouters

(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.

43.

Zahedi

Haustein

Bowman

(2014) Exploring data quality and retrieval strategies for Mendeley reader counts. Presentation at SIGMET metrics 2014 workshop. Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/StefanieHaustein/sigme-tworkshopasist2014 (accessed 3 July 2017).

44.

Zoller

Doerfel

Jäschke

et al. (2016) Posted, visited, exported: Altmetrics in the social tagging system BibSonomy. Journal of Informetrics 10(3): 732–749.

45.

Zuccala

Guns

(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).