Mendeley Readership Altmetrics for Clinical Medicine and
Engineering?
Ehsan Mohammadi1, Mike Thelwall1, Vincent Larivière2, Stefanie Haustein2
E-mail: [email protected]
1University of Wolverhampton. UK.2Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Citation is incomplete
• Limited to authors’ perspectives.(Schloegl & Stock, 2004).
• More appropriate for theoretical publications.
• 3-5 years times are needed for receiving citation
• Citation indicators are not able to give the full picture of research impact
Usage Metrics are tasteful but..
• They mainly employed local usage data.
• Downloaders are unknown.
• Data aggregation is not easy.
Altmetrics as a solution?Altmetrics is a new movement which tries to find complementary measures for traditional metrics based on scholars’ activities in social web platforms (Priem, Taraborelli, Groth, & Neylon, 2011).
Data collection is faster.Data is more accessible.Data coverage is global.Diversity in data type (not limited to authors)
Why Mendeley?
• Massive users
• Diversity of users
• Huge size of database
• Open API
• Global coverage
Research Question
• What proportion of Clinical Medicine and Engineering articles are covered by Mendeley database?
• Are there significant, substantial and positive correlations between Mendeley readership counts and citation measures in Clinical Medicine and Engineering specialties?
Method• Montreal university’s in-house version of the Thomson-ISI databases were used for data collection.
• Based on NSF classification, the most productive specialities of engineering and clinical medicine were selected
• All bibliographic information + citation data of the journal articles of the year 2008 were downloaded.• 145,536 for clinical medicine and 109,390 for engineering.
• Statistics data related to Mendeley readership for the WoS articles were extracted using the Mendeley API.
• The WoS data set and Mendeley readership data were matched and duplications were removed.
• Spearman correlation tests were applied to the ISI citations and Mendeley readership counts.
Neuro
logy
& Neu
rosu
rger
y
Pharm
acolo
gy
Gener
al & In
tern
al M
edici
ne
Cance
r
Surge
ry
Imm
unolo
gy
Cardio
vasc
ular S
yste
m
Mec
hanic
al Eng
ineer
ing
Compu
ters
Electri
cal E
ngine
ering
Chem
ical E
ngine
ering
Mat
erial
s Scie
nce
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
% of WoS articles fro 2008 from Clinical Medicine and Engineering specialities in Mendeley
Unique WoS articles covered by Mendeley
Duplicated records in Mendeley catalogue
Articles with readership statistics in Mendeley
Findings
• We considered the coverage in Mendeley for different specialties based on the available unique records in Mendeley catalogue.
• Clinical Medicine articles had the higher coverage (71.6%) in comparison to Engineering and Technology (33.7%) papers.
• 1.5% of the overall founded records of both Engineering and Clinical Medicine were subjected to duplication.
Neuro
logy
& Neu
rosu
rger
y
Pharm
acolo
gy
Gener
al & In
tern
al M
edici
ne
Cance
r
Surge
ry
Imm
unolo
gy
Cardio
vasc
ular S
yste
m
Mec
hanic
al Eng
ineer
ing
Compu
ters
Electri
cal E
ngine
ering
Chem
ical E
ngine
ering
Mat
erial
s Scie
nce
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Spearman correlations between WoS citations and Mendeley readership counts (non-zero only) for 2008 Clinical Medicine and
engineering articles
Findings
• There is a significant correlation between Mendeley readership and citation counts in all the investigated specialities.
• The correlation for clinical medicine overall (r=.561) is higher than for engineering (r=.501).
• Cancer (r=.604) and Materials Science (r=.682) had the highest correlations among clinical medicine and engineering specialties.
• Surgery (r=.451) and Computers (r=.414) had the lowest correlations among Clinical Medicine and Engineering and Technology specialties.
Neuro
logy
& Neu
rosu
rger
y
Pharm
acolo
gy
Gener
al & In
tern
al M
edici
ne
Cance
r
Surge
ry
Imm
unolo
gy
Cardio
vasc
ular S
yste
m
Mec
hanic
al Eng
ineer
ing
Compu
ters
Electri
cal E
ngine
ering
Chem
ical E
ngine
ering
Mat
erial
s Scie
nce
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Comparison of citation and Mendeley readership median for 2008 Clinical Medicine and engineering articles
WoS citation median
Mendeley readership median
Findings
• The median Mendeley readership counts were higher than the median citation counts for mechanical and computer engineering papers.
• This is due to that mechanical and computer engineering papers were read more and citied less.
Limitations
• Readership is limited to the individuals who choose Mendeley for their reference manager.
• Our studied sample is restricted to journal articles while conference papers are important document types in engineering disciplines.
Conclusions
• In almost all disciplines, the correlation is not strong enough to conclude that Mendeley readership and citation counts measure the same aspect of research impact.
• A likely explanation is that Mendeley captures broader scholarly activities from a variety of readers’ perspectives in comparison to citation counts.
• Hence, Mendeley readership data could be a useful supplementary measure to remedy some limitations of citation analysis for some applied specialities.