Diese Datenbank enthält über 40.000 Dokumente zu Themen aus den Bereichen Formalerschließung – Inhaltserschließung – Information Retrieval.
© 2015 W. Gödert, TH Köln, Institut für Informationswissenschaft / Powered by litecat, BIS Oldenburg (Stand: 04. Juni 2021)
1Maflahi, N. ; Thelwall, M.: How quickly do publications get read? : the evolution of mendeley reader counts for new articles.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.158-167.
Abstract: Within science, citation counts are widely used to estimate research impact but publication delays mean that they are not useful for recent research. This gap can be filled by Mendeley reader counts, which are valuable early impact indicators for academic articles because they appear before citations and correlate strongly with them. Nevertheless, it is not known how Mendeley readership counts accumulate within the year of publication, and so it is unclear how soon they can be used. In response, this paper reports a longitudinal weekly study of the Mendeley readers of articles in 6 library and information science journals from 2016. The results suggest that Mendeley readers accrue from when articles are first available online and continue to steadily build. For journals with large publication delays, articles can already have substantial numbers of readers by their publication date. Thus, Mendeley reader counts may even be useful as early impact indicators for articles before they have been officially published in a journal issue. If field normalized indicators are needed, then these can be generated when journal issues are published using the online first date.
Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23909/full.
Themenfeld: Informetrie ; Elektronisches Publizieren
2Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published?.
In: Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.2, S.174-183.
Abstract: Purpose Mendeley reader counts have been proposed as early indicators for the impact of academic publications. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether there are enough Mendeley readers for research evaluation purposes during the month when an article is first published. Design/methodology/approach Average Mendeley reader counts were compared to the average Scopus citation counts for 104,520 articles from ten disciplines during the second half of 2016. Findings Articles attracted, on average, between 0.1 and 0.8 Mendeley readers per article in the month in which they first appeared in Scopus. This is about ten times more than the average Scopus citation count. Research limitations/implications Other disciplines may use Mendeley more or less than the ten investigated here. The results are dependent on Scopus's indexing practices, and Mendeley reader counts can be manipulated and have national and seniority biases. Practical implications Mendeley reader counts during the month of publication are more powerful than Scopus citations for comparing the average impacts of groups of documents but are not high enough to differentiate between the impacts of typical individual articles. Originality/value This is the first multi-disciplinary and systematic analysis of Mendeley reader counts from the publication month of an article.
Inhalt: Vgl.: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0028.
3Zahedi, Z. ; Costas, R. ; Wouters, P.: Mendeley readership as a filtering tool to identify highly cited publications.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.10, S.2511-2521.
Abstract: This study presents a large-scale analysis of the distribution and presence of Mendeley readership scores over time and across disciplines. We study whether Mendeley readership scores (RS) can identify highly cited publications more effectively than journal citation scores (JCS). Web of Science (WoS) publications with digital object identifiers (DOIs) published during the period 2004-2013 and across five major scientific fields were analyzed. The main result of this study shows that RS are more effective (in terms of precision/recall values) than JCS to identify highly cited publications across all fields of science and publication years. The findings also show that 86.5% of all the publications are covered by Mendeley and have at least one reader. Also, the share of publications with Mendeley RS is increasing from 84% in 2004 to 89% in 2009, and decreasing from 88% in 2010 to 82% in 2013. However, it is noted that publications from 2010 onwards exhibit on average a higher density of readership versus citation scores. This indicates that compared to citation scores, RS are more prevalent for recent publications and hence they could work as an early indicator of research impact. These findings highlight the potential and value of Mendeley as a tool for scientometric purposes and particularly as a relevant tool to identify highly cited publications.
Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23883/full.
Themenfeld: Elektronisches Publizieren ; Informetrie
4Costas, R. ; Perianes-Rodríguez, A. ; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership.
In: Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.5, S.557-575.
Abstract: Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.
Inhalt: Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0023.
Anmerkung: Beitrag eines Special issue on "The reward system of science".
Themenfeld: Elektronisches Publizieren ; Informetrie
Objekt: Mendeley ; Altmetrics
5Maflahi, N. ; Thelwall, M.: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? : Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.1, S.191-199.
Abstract: In theory, articles can attract readers on the social reference sharing site Mendeley before they can attract citations, so Mendeley altmetrics could provide early indications of article impact. This article investigates the influence of time on the number of Mendeley readers of an article through a theoretical discussion and an investigation into the relationship between counts of readers of, and citations to, 4 general library and information science (LIS) journals. For this discipline, it takes about 7 years for articles to attract as many Scopus citations as Mendeley readers, and after this the Spearman correlation between readers and citers is stable at about 0.6 for all years. This suggests that Mendeley readership counts may be useful impact indicators for both newer and older articles. The lack of dates for individual Mendeley article readers and an unknown bias toward more recent articles mean that readership data should be normalized individually by year, however, before making any comparisons between articles published in different years.
Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23369/abstract.
Wissenschaftsfach: Bibliothekswesen ; Informationswissenschaft
Objekt: Mendeley ; Scopus
6Mohammadi, E. ; Thelwall, M. ; Kousha, K.: Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? : a survey of user motivations.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.5, S.1198-1209.
Abstract: Although Mendeley bookmarking counts appear to correlate moderately with conventional citation metrics, it is not known whether academic publications are bookmarked in Mendeley in order to be read or not. Without this information, it is not possible to give a confident interpretation of altmetrics derived from Mendeley. In response, a survey of 860 Mendeley users shows that it is reasonable to use Mendeley bookmarking counts as an indication of readership because most (55%) users with a Mendeley library had read or intended to read at least half of their bookmarked publications. This was true across all broad areas of scholarship except for the arts and humanities (42%). About 85% of the respondents also declared that they bookmarked articles in Mendeley to cite them in their publications, but some also bookmark articles for use in professional (50%), teaching (25%), and educational activities (13%). Of course, it is likely that most readers do not record articles in Mendeley and so these data do not represent all readers. In conclusion, Mendeley bookmark counts seem to be indicators of readership leading to a combination of scholarly impact and wider professional impact.
Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23477/abstract.
7Böhner, D. ; Stöber, T. ; Teichert, A. ; Lemke, D. ; Tietze, K. ; Helfer, M. ; Frauenrath, P. ; Podschull, S.: Literaturverwaltungsprogramme im Vergleich.Stand: Juni 2020.
Abstract: Der ursprünglich von Kollegen der UB Augsburg zusammengestellte Vergleich wurde nun schon zum 8. Mal aktualisiert (Stand: Juni 2020) und bietet einen Überblick über die verschiedenen Funktionen, die Bedienung und Lizenz-/Preismodelle von Literaturverwaltungsprogrammen. Folgende Anwendungen werden betrachtet: Bibsonomy, Citavi, EndNote, JabRef, Mendeley, Papers, Literaturverwaltung in MS Word und Zotero. Die jeweils aktuelle Version des Vergleiches finden Sie unter folgendem Link: https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/node?id=1127579. Vgl. Mail von Dorothea Lemke an Inetbib vom 06.07.2020.
Themenfeld: Bibliographische Software
Objekt: Citavi ; EndNote ; EndNote Web ; RefWorks ; Zotero ; Mendeley ; JabRef ; Colwiz ; Paperpile
8Wilson, P. (Hrsg.): Thelwall, M.: Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles : an analysis of 45 fields.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.8, S.1962-1972.
Abstract: Medical research is highly funded and often expensive and so is particularly important to evaluate effectively. Nevertheless, citation counts may accrue too slowly for use in some formal and informal evaluations. It is therefore important to investigate whether alternative metrics could be used as substitutes. This article assesses whether one such altmetric, Mendeley readership counts, correlates strongly with citation counts across all medical fields, whether the relationship is stronger if student readers are excluded, and whether they are distributed similarly to citation counts. Based on a sample of 332,975 articles from 2009 in 45 medical fields in Scopus, citation counts correlated strongly (about 0.7; 78% of articles had at least one reader) with Mendeley readership counts (from the new version 1 applications programming interface [API]) in almost all fields, with one minor exception, and the correlations tended to decrease slightly when student readers were excluded. Readership followed either a lognormal or a hooked power law distribution, whereas citations always followed a hooked power law, showing that the two may have underlying differences.
Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23501/abstract.
9Thelwall, M. ; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3036-3050.
Abstract: Scientists and managers using citation-based indicators to help evaluate research cannot evaluate recent articles because of the time needed for citations to accrue. Reading occurs before citing, however, and so it makes sense to count readers rather than citations for recent publications. To assess this, Mendeley readers and citations were obtained for articles from 2004 to late 2014 in five broad categories (agriculture, business, decision science, pharmacy, and the social sciences) and 50 subcategories. In these areas, citation counts tended to increase with every extra year since publication, and readership counts tended to increase faster initially but then stabilize after about 5 years. The correlation between citations and readers was also higher for longer time periods, stabilizing after about 5 years. Although there were substantial differences between broad fields and smaller differences between subfields, the results confirm the value of Mendeley reader counts as early scientific impact indicators.
Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23559/full.
10Bornmann, L. ; Haunschild, R.: Overlay maps based on Mendeley data : the use of altmetrics for readership networks.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3064-3072.
Abstract: Visualization of scientific results using networks has become popular in scientometric research. We provide base maps for Mendeley reader count data using the publication year 2012 from the Web of Science data. Example networks are shown and explained. The reader can use our base maps to visualize other results with the VOSViewer. The proposed overlay maps are able to show the impact of publications in terms of readership data. The advantage of using our base maps is that it is not necessary for the user to produce a network based on all data (e.g., from 1 year), but can collect the Mendeley data for a single institution (or journals, topics) and can match them with our already produced information. Generation of such large-scale networks is still a demanding task despite the available computer power and digital data availability. Therefore, it is very useful to have base maps and create the network with the overlay technique.
Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23530/full.
Objekt: Mendeley ; Altmetrics
11Adam, M. ; Musiat, J. ; Stöhr, M. ; Wenzel, C.: Literaturverwaltungsprogramme im Überblick.4. Aktualisierung.
Abstract: Das Dokument enthält einen Vergleich von sechs Literaturverwaltungsprogrammen - Zotero, Citavi, Mendeley, RefWorks, EndNote und JabRef. Es wurden Versionen mit Stand 11/2016 getestet. Folgende Kriterien wurden berücksichtigt: Allgemeines und Installation, Import- / Exportmöglichkeiten, Dateneingabe und -bearbeitung, Anzeige und Suche, Kooperation, Zitieren und Literaturlisten, weitere Funktionen und Benutzung. Der Vergleich schließt mit einer Gesamtbewertung der Stärken und Schwächen und gibt zielgruppenspezifische Auswahlempfehlungen.
Inhalt: Vgl. auch: urn:nbn:de:bsz:14-qucosa2-77350.
Themenfeld: Bibliographische Software
Objekt: Zotero ; Citavi ; Mendeley ; RefWorks ; EndNote ; JabRef
RVK: ST 271 ; AK 39900
12Costas, R. ; Zahedi, Z. ; Wouters, P.: ¬The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media : large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations.
In: Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.3, S.260 - 288.
Abstract: Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the disciplinary orientation of scientific publications that were mentioned on different social media platforms, focussing on their differences and similarities with citation counts. Design/methodology/approach - Social media metrics and readership counts, associated with 500,216 publications and their citation data from the Web of Science database, were collected from Altmetric.com and Mendeley. Results are presented through descriptive statistical analyses together with science maps generated with VOSviewer. Findings - The results confirm Mendeley as the most prevalent social media source with similar characteristics to citations in their distribution across fields and their density in average values per publication. The humanities, natural sciences, and engineering disciplines have a much lower presence of social media metrics. Twitter has a stronger focus on general medicine and social sciences. Other sources (blog, Facebook, Google+, and news media mentions) are more prominent in regards to multidisciplinary journals. Originality/value - This paper reinforces the relevance of Mendeley as a social media source for analytical purposes from a disciplinary perspective, being particularly relevant for the social sciences (together with Twitter). Key implications for the use of social media metrics on the evaluation of research performance (e.g. the concentration of some social media metrics, such as blogs, news items, etc., around multidisciplinary journals) are identified.
Inhalt: Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0173.
Anmerkung: Teil eines Special Issue: Social Media Metrics in Scholarly Communication: exploring tweets, blogs, likes and other altmetrics.
13Voirol, C.: Mendeley Institutional Edition (MIE) als Plattform für die Verwaltung und Auswertung wissenschaftlicher Literatur in der Medizin.
In: B.I.T. Online. 18(2015) H.5, S.414-416.
Abstract: Die Schweizer Hochschule für gesundheitswissenschaften Haute ecole arc Santé, Neuchatel, hat für ihre Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler einen automatisierten Verwaltungsprozess zum Management von literaturhinweisen aus Benachrichtigungsdiensten sowie für literaturauswertungen eingerichtet. Um ihre wissenschaftlichen Kenntnisse stets auf dem neuesten Stand zu halten, müssen Professoren, Wissenschaftler und Studenten an akademischen Institutionen ihr eigenes regelmäßiges Literatur-Monitoring entwickeln. Unabhängig davon, ob man voreingerichtete Benachrichtigungsdienste (wie z.B. www.healthevidence.org der kanadischen McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario) nutzt oder eigene automatisierte Suchabfragen auf Meta-Suchmaschinen wie Ovid, Ebsco oder ISI Web of Sciences einrichtet, besteht die Herausforderung darin, aus den gelieferten Literaturhinweisen die relevanten Artikel zu sammeln, zu referenzieren und mithilfe einer Referenz-Management Software zu speichern. Die Schweizer Hochschule für Gesundheitswissenschaften Haute Ecole Arc Santé in Neuchatel hat einen Prozess entwickelt, der zum einen auf der Microsoft OneNote Software und zum anderen auf der Literaturverwaltungssoftware Mendeley Institutional Edition (MIE) basiert. Mithilfe dieses Prozesses können die Wissenschaftler nicht nur ihr eigenes periodisches Literatur-Monitoring einrichten, sondern ihre Suchergebnisse auch mit ihren Kollegen und Partnerorganisationen teilen.