National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers

National research impact indicators derived from citation counts are used by governments to help assess their national research performance and to identify the effect of funding or policy changes. Citation counts lag research by several years, however, and so their information is somewhat out of date. Some of this lag can be avoided by using readership counts from the social reference sharing site Mendeley because these accumulate more quickly than citations. This article introduces a method to calculate national research impact indicators from Mendeley, using citation counts from older time periods to partially compensate for international biases in Mendeley readership. A refinement to accommodate recent national changes in Mendeley uptake makes little difference, despite being theoretically more accurate. The Mendeley patterns using the methods broadly reflect the results from similar calculations with citations and seem to reflect impact trends about a year earlier. Nevertheless, the reasons for the differences between the indicators from the two data sources are unclear

Word statistics in Blogs and RSS feeds: Towards empirical universal evidence

We focus on the statistics of word occurrences and of the waiting times between such occurrences in Blogs. Due to the heterogeneity of words' frequencies, the empirical analysis is performed by studying classes of "frequently-equivalent" words, i.e. by grouping words depending on their frequencies. Two limiting cases are considered: the dilute limit, i.e. for those words that are used less than once a day, and the dense limit for frequent words. In both cases, extreme events occur more frequently than expected from the Poisson hypothesis. These deviations from Poisson statistics reveal non-trivial time correlations between events that are associated with bursts of activities. The distribution of waiting times is shown to behave like a stretched exponential and to have the same shape for different sets of words sharing a common frequency, thereby revealing universal features.Comment: 16 pages, 6 figure

ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations?

ResearchGate has launched its own citation index by extracting citations from documents uploaded to the site and reporting citation counts on article profile pages. Since authors may upload preprints to ResearchGate, it may use these to provide early impact evidence for new papers. This article assesses the whether the number of citations found for recent articles is comparable to other citation indexes using 2675 recently-published library and information science articles. The results show that in March 2017, ResearchGate found less citations than did Google Scholar but more than both Web of Science and Scopus. This held true for the dataset overall and for the six largest journals in it. ResearchGate correlated most strongly with Google Scholar citations, suggesting that ResearchGate is not predominantly tapping a fundamentally different source of data than Google Scholar. Nevertheless, preprint sharing in ResearchGate is substantial enough for authors to take seriously

How important is computing technology for library and information science research?

© 2015 Elsevier Inc. Computers in library and information science (LIS) research have been an object of study or a tool for research for at least fifty years, but how central are computers to the discipline now? This research analyses the titles, abstracts, and keywords of forty years of articles in LIS-classified journals for trends related to computing technologies. The proportion of Scopus LIS articles mentioning some aspect of computing in their title, abstract, or keywords increased steadily from 1986 to 2000, then stabilised at about two thirds, indicating a continuing dominance of computers in most LIS research. Within this general trend, many computer-related terms have peaked and then declined in popularity. For example, the proportion of Scopus LIS article titles, abstracts, or keywords that included the terms "computer" or "computing" decreased fairly steadily from about 20% in 1975 to 5% in 2013, and the proportion explicitly mentioning the web peaked at 18% in 2002. Parallel analyses suggest that computing is substantially less important in two related disciplines: education and communication, and so it should be seen as a key aspect of the LIS identity.Published versio

COVID-19 publications: Database coverage, citations, readers, tweets, news, Facebook walls, Reddit posts

© 2020 The Authors. Published by MIT Press. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00066The COVID-19 pandemic requires a fast response from researchers to help address biological, medical and public health issues to minimize its impact. In this rapidly evolving context, scholars, professionals and the public may need to quickly identify important new studies. In response, this paper assesses the coverage of scholarly databases and impact indicators during 21 March to 18 April 2020. The rapidly increasing volume of research, is particularly accessible through Dimensions, and less through Scopus, the Web of Science, and PubMed. Google Scholar’s results included many false matches. A few COVID-19 papers from the 21,395 in Dimensions were already highly cited, with substantial news and social media attention. For this topic, in contrast to previous studies, there seems to be a high degree of convergence between articles shared in the social web and citation counts, at least in the short term. In particular, articles that are extensively tweeted on the day first indexed are likely to be highly read and relatively highly cited three weeks later. Researchers needing wide scope literature searches (rather than health focused PubMed or medRxiv searches) should start with Dimensions (or Google Scholar) and can use tweet and Mendeley reader counts as indicators of likely importance

Are Mendeley Reader Counts Useful Impact Indicators in all Fields?

Reader counts from the social reference sharing site Mendeley are known to be valuable for early research evaluation. They have strong correlations with citation counts for journal articles but appear about a year before them. There are disciplinary differences in the value of Mendeley reader counts but systematic evidence is needed at the level of narrow fields to reveal its extent. In response, this article compares Mendeley reader counts with Scopus citation counts for journal articles from 2012 in 325 narrow Scopus fields. Despite strong positive correlations in most fields, averaging 0.671, the correlations in some fields are as weak as 0.255. Technical reasons explain most weaker correlations, suggesting that the underlying relationship is almost always strong. The exceptions are caused by unusually high educational or professional use or topics of interest within countries that avoid Mendeley. The findings suggest that if care is taken then Mendeley reader counts can be used for early citation impact evidence in almost all fields and for related impact in some of the remainder. As an additional application of the results, cross-checking with Mendeley data can be used to identify indexing anomalies in citation databases

Can Microsoft Academic be used for citation analysis of preprint archives? The case of the Social Science Research Network

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Springer in Scientometrics on 07/03/2018, available online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2704-z The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Preprint archives play an important scholarly communication role within some fields. The impact of archives and individual preprints are difficult to analyse because online repositories are not indexed by the Web of Science or Scopus. In response, this article assesses whether the new Microsoft Academic can be used for citation analysis of preprint archives, focusing on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). Although Microsoft Academic seems to index SSRN comprehensively, it groups a small fraction of SSRN papers into an easily retrievable set that has variations in character over time, making any field normalisation or citation comparisons untrustworthy. A brief parallel analysis of arXiv suggests that similar results would occur for other online repositories. Systematic analyses of preprint archives are nevertheless possible with Microsoft Academic when complete lists of archive publications are available from other sources because of its promising coverage and citation results

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

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

Early Mendeley readers correlate with later citation counts

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Springer in Scientometrics on 26/03/2018, available online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2715-9 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Counts of the number of readers registered in the social reference manager Mendeley have been proposed as an early impact indicator for journal articles. Although previous research has shown that Mendeley reader counts for articles tend to have a strong positive correlation with synchronous citation counts after a few years, no previous studies have compared early Mendeley reader counts with later citation counts. In response, this first diachronic analysis compares reader counts within a month of publication with citation counts after 20 months for ten fields. There were moderate or strong correlations in eight out of ten fields, with the two exceptions being the smallest categories (n=18, 36) with wide confidence intervals. The correlations are higher than the correlations between later citations and early citations, showing that Mendeley reader counts are more useful early impact indicators than citation counts

Is Medical Research Informing Professional Practice More Highly Cited? Evidence from AHFS DI Essentials in Drugs.com

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Springer in Scientometrics on 21/02/2017, available online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2292-3 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Citation-based indicators are often used to help evaluate the impact of published medical studies, even though the research has the ultimate goal of improving human wellbeing. One direct way of influencing health outcomes is by guiding physicians and other medical professionals about which drugs to prescribe. A high profile source of this guidance is the AHFS DI Essentials product of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, which gives systematic information for drug prescribers. AHFS DI Essentials documents, which are also indexed by Drugs.com, include references to academic studies and the referenced work is therefore helping patients by guiding drug prescribing. This article extracts AHFS DI Essentials documents from Drugs.com and assesses whether articles referenced in these information sheets have their value recognised by higher Scopus citation counts. A comparison of mean log-transformed citation counts between articles that are and are not referenced in AHFS DI Essentials shows that AHFS DI Essentials references are more highly cited than average for the publishing journal. This suggests that medical research influencing drug prescribing is more cited than average