ARCHIVE
DOCUMENT
1/1
Differences between Journals and Years in the Proportions of Students, Researchers and Faculty Registering Mendeley Articles - Figures
Version 2 2018-02-02, 13:15Version 2 2018-02-02, 13:15
Version 1 2017-05-26, 18:58Version 1 2017-05-26, 18:58
dataset
posted on 2018-02-02, 13:15 authored by Mike ThelwallMike ThelwallFigures for 36 monodisciplinary journals showing average (geometric mean) numbers of readers and citations and a breakdown of reader types by year.
Taken from an article under review with abstract:
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.
History
Usage metrics
Categories
Licence
Exports
RefWorksRefWorks
BibTeXBibTeX
Ref. managerRef. manager
EndnoteEndnote
DataCiteDataCite
NLMNLM
DCDC