Which people use which scientific papers? An evaluation of data from F1000 and Mendeley

Journal of Informetrics - Tập 9 Số 3 - Trang 477-487 - 2015
Lutz Bornmann1, Robin Haunschild2
1Division for Science and Innovation Studies, Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society, Hofgartenstr. 8, 80539, Munich, Germany
2Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research, Heisenbergstr. 1, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany

Tóm tắt

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Bar-Ilan, 2014, Bibliographic references in Web 2.0, 307

Bonasio, 2014

Bornmann, 2012, Measuring the societal impact of research, EMBO Reports, 13, 673, 10.1038/embor.2012.99

Bornmann, 2013, What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey, Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 64, 217, 10.1002/asi.22803

Bornmann, 2014, Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime, Journal of Informetrics, 8, 935, 10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.007

Bornmann, L. (2015). Usefulness of altmetrics for measuring the broader impact of research: A case study using data from PLOS (altmetrics) and F1000Prime (paper tags). arXiv:1409.2863. in press at Aslib Journal of Information Management, Vol. 67, Issue 3

Bornmann, 2015, Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics, Scientometrics, 10.1007/s11192-015-1565-y

Bornmann, 2015, Inter-rater reliability and convergent validity of F1000Prime peer review, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 10.1002/asi.23334

Bornmann, 2015, Letter to the Editor: On the conceptualisation and theorisation of the impact caused by publications, Scientometrics, 10.1007/s11192-015-1588-4

Bornmann, 2008, What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior, Journal of Documentation, 64, 45, 10.1108/00220410810844150

Bornmann, 2013, How to calculate the practical significance of citation impact differences? An empirical example from evaluative institutional bibliometrics using adjusted predictions and marginal effects, Journal of Informetrics, 7, 562, 10.1016/j.joi.2013.02.005

Glänzel, 2008

Haunschild, 2015, F1000Prime: An analysis of discipline-specific reader data from Mendeley [v2; ref status: Awaiting peer review, http://f1000r.es/50a], F1000Research, 4

Haustein, 2014, Readership metrics, 327

Haustein, 2015, Interpreting altmetrics: Viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories

Haustein, 2014, A multidimensional analysis of Aslib proceedings – Using everything but the impact factor, Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66, 358, 10.1108/AJIM-11-2013-0127

Haustein, 2014, Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ?, IT – Information Technology, 56, 207, 10.1515/itit-2014-1048

Haustein, 2014, Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community, Scientometrics, 1

Hosmer, 2000

Kohler, 2012

Kreiman, 2011, Nine criteria for a measure of scientific output, Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 5

Li, 2012, Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement, Scientometrics, 91, 461, 10.1007/s11192-011-0580-x

Mohammadi, 2013, Assessing the Mendeley readership of social science and humanities research, 200

Mohammadi, 2014

Mohammadi, 2015, Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Neylon, 2014

Priem, 2014, Altmetrics

Rodgers, 2013

Schlögl, 2013, Download vs. vitiation vs. readership data: The case of an information systems journal, Vol. 1, 626

Schlögl, 2014, A comparison of citations, downloads and readership data for an information systems journal, Research Trends, 37, 14

Shema, 2014, Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 1018, 10.1002/asi.23037

StataCorp, 2013

Sud, 2015, Not all international collaboration is beneficial: The Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Thelwall, 2015, Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? An analysis of Mendeley readers, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 10.1002/asi.23252

Weller, 2012, Citations in Web 2.0, 209

Williams, 2012, Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects, The Stata Journal, 12, 308, 10.1177/1536867X1201200209

Williams, 2014, The substantive and practical significance of citation impact differences between institutions: Guidelines for the analysis of percentiles using effect sizes and confidence intervals, 259

Wouters, 2012

Zahedi, 2014, Assessing the impact of publications saved by Mendeley users: Is there any different pattern among users?

Zahedi, 2014, How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications, Scientometrics, 1