Mendeley reader counts for US computer science conference papers and journal articles
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21255789 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Mike Thelwall (0000-0001-6065-205X, University of Wolverhampton, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 347-359 |
| Publication date | 2020-02-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Quantitative Science Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2641-3337 • E-ISSN: 2641-3337 |
| Publisher | MIT Press (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1162/qss_a_00010 |
| OpenAlex | W2971589443 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 49 |
Although bibliometrics are normally applied to journal articles when used to support research evaluations, conference papers are at least as important in fast-moving computing-related fields. It is therefore important to assess the relative advantages of citations and altmetrics for computing conference papers to make an informed decision about which, if any, to use. This paper compares Scopus citations with Mendeley reader counts for conference papers and journal articles that were published between 1996 and 2018 in 11 computing fields and that had at least one US author. The data showed high correlations between Scopus citation counts and Mendeley reader counts in all fields and most years, but with few Mendeley readers for older conference papers and few Scopus citations for new conference papers and journal articles. The results therefore suggest that Mendeley reader counts have a substantial advantage over citation counts for recently published conference papers due to their greater speed, but are unsuitable for older conference papers
Altmetrics · Bibliometrics · Citation · Citation impact · Data science · Information retrieval · Library science · MEDLINE · Political science · Scopus · Web of science · World Wide Web · Computer Science · Online Learning and Analytics · Scientific Computing and Data Management · scientometrics and bibliometrics research
A multi-dimensional analysis of usage counts, Mendeley readership, and citations for journal and conference papers
The moderating effect of altmetrics on the correlations between single and multi-faceted university ranking systems
Google Books, Scopus, Microsoft Academic, and Mendeley for impact assessment of doctoral dissertations
Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus
Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact
Online collaboration
Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective
A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes
Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services
Which Type of Citation Analysis Generates the Most Accurate Taxonomy of Scientific and Technical Knowledge?
| Citations per year | 0.5 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2020 - 2024 (5) |
| Highly cited | No |