Journal of Science and Technology Metrics

Mendeley Readership Counts: An investigation of DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology

Lambodara Parabhoi, Manoj Kumar Verma
Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Rashtrapati Nivas Shimla-171005, India., Mizoram University Aizawl-796004, India

Abstract: Mendeley is a citation management tool and widely used by academics, educators and librarians around the world. It gives early impact data in relation to an individual academicâ€™s work, rather than citation data. The study reported in this paper aimed to investigate and characterize the presence of DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology articles in Mendeley. Data were exported from Mendeley using Webometric Analyst software. A total 391 articles were found with total 6132 readership count.The results show that student and librarian groups are primary readers of the publications as compared to faculty, researchers, and other reader groups. There is a 0.3217 correlation between Scopus citations with Mendeley readers. It was also noted that all the 391 articles has at least one reader.

Keywords: Altmetrics, DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, Mendeley Readership, Readership Mendeley Readership Counts: An investigation of DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology

DOI:https://doi.org/10.6025/jstm/2020/1/2/62-70

Full_Text PDF (185 KB) Download: 284 times

References:

[1] Batooli, Z., Ravandi, S. N., Bidgoli, M. S. (2016). Evaluation of Scientific Outputs of Kashan University of Medical Sciences in Scopus Citation Database based on Scopus, Research Gate, and Mendeley Scientometric Measures. Electronic Physician, 8(2), 2048–2056. http://doi.org/10.19082/2048.
[2] Macmillan, D. (2012). Mendeley: Teaching scholarly communication and collaboration through social networking. Library Management, 33(8–9), 561–569. http://doi.org/10.1108/01435121211279902.
[3] Maflahi, N., Thelwall, M. (2016). When Are Readership Counts as Useful as Citation Counts ? Scopus Versus Mendeley for LIS Journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67 (1) 191–199. http://doi.org/10.1002/ asi.
[4] Mendeley. (2019). About Mendeley. Retrieved July 30, 2019, from https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/mendeley.
[5] Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M. (2014). Mendeley Readership Altmetrics for the Social Sciences and Humanities : Research Evaluation and Knowledge Flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65 (8) 1627–1638. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.
[6] Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K. (2016). Can Mendeley Bookmarks Reflect Readership ? A Survey of User motivations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67 (5) 1198–1209. http://doi.org/10.1002/ asi
[7] Padhan, P. (2016). Analysis of Mendeley Readership Activities of Indian Information and Library Science Literature indexed in Web of Science. In: International Conference on Marching Beyond the Libraries: The Role of Social Media and Networking (ICMBL 2016) At: Bhubaneswa: KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
[8] Parabhoi, L. (2017). How Mendeley Helps to Your Research Work? In: National Conference of Agricultural Libraries & User Community (NCALUC-2017) on Libriaries Beyond Borders: Navigating Towards Global Dissimination (p. 64–70).Hisar: BS Publication.
[9] Parabhoi, L., Pathy, S. K., Seth, A. K. (2017). Citation Management Software Tools: a Comparison with Special Reference to Zotero and Mendeley. Journal of Advances in Library and Information Science, 6 (3) 288–293.
[10] Parabhoi, L., Sahu, R. R., Bhoi, N. (2018). Usefulness of citation or bibliographic management software: a case study of LIS professionals in India. International Journal of Information Movement, 2 (XI), 55–61.
[11] Pooladian, A., Borrego, Á. (2017). Twenty years of readership of library and information science literature under Mendeley’s microscope. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 18 (1) 67–77.
[12] Riahinia, N., Rahimi, F., Author, C., Mirhaghjoo, S., Jahangiri, M., Alinezhad, F. (2018). Traditional Citation Indexes and Alternative Metrics of Readership. International Journal of Information Science and Management, 16 (2) 61–78.
[13] SCImago. (2019). SJR — SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Retrieved from https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100212132&tip=sid.
[14] Shrivastava, R., Mahajan, P. (2016). Relationship between citation counts and Mendeley readership metrics. New Library World, 117 (3) 229–238. http://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-09-2015-0064.
[15] Sud, P., Thelwall, M. (2016). Not All International Collaboration i s Beneficial: The Mendeley Readership and Citation Impact of Biochemical Research Collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67 (8) 1849–1857. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.
[16] Thelwall, M. (2015). Why Do Papers Have Many Mendeley Readers But Few Scopus-Indexed Citations and Vice Versa? Journal of Librarianship & Information Science, 49 (2) 144–151. http://doi.org/10.1177/0961000615594867.
[17] Thelwall, M. (2017). Citation counts. Scientometrics, 115 (3) 1–11. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2715-9.
[18] SCImago. (2019). SJR — SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Retrieved from https://www.scimagojr.com/ journalsearch.php?q=21100212132&tip=sid.
[19] Shrivastava, R., Mahajan, P. (2016). Relationship between citation counts and Mendeley readership metrics. New Library World, 117 (3) 229–238. http://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-09-2015-0064
[20] Sud, P., Thelwall, M. (2016). Not All International Collaboration i s Beneficial: The Mendeley Readership and Citation Impact of Biochemical Research Collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67 (8) 1849–1857. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.
[21] Thelwall, M. (2015). Why Do Papers Have Many Mendeley Readers But Few Scopus-Indexed Citations and Vice Versa? Journal of Librarianship & Information Science, 49 (2) 144–151. http://doi.org/10.1177/0961000615594867.
[22] Thelwall, M. (2017). Citation counts. Scientometrics, 115 (3) 1–11. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2715-9.
[23] Thelwall, M. (2017). Do Mendeley reader counts indicate the value of arts and humanities research? Journal of Librarian ship and Information Science, 0 (0) 1–8. http://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617732381.
[24] Thelwall, M. (2017). Web Indicators for Research Evaluation: A Practical Guide. Morgan & Claypool Publishers series.
[25] Thelwall, M. (2018). Differences between journals and years in the proportions of students, researchers and faculty registering Mendeley articles. Scientometrics, 115 (2) 717–729. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2689-7.
[26] Thelwall, M. (2018). Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries. Journal of Informetrics, 12 (4) 1031–1041. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.08.005
[27] Thelwall, M., Fairclough, R. (2015). National Research Impact Indicators from Mendeley Readers 1. Journal ofInformetrics, 9 (4) 845–859. http://doi.org/10.1016/ j.joi.2015.08.003.citation.
[28] Thelwall, M., Sud, P. (2016). Mendeley Readership Counts: An Investigation of Temporal and Disciplinary Differences. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67 (12) 3036–3050. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.
[29] Thelwall, M., Wilson, P. (2016). Mendeley Readership Altmetrics for Medical Articles: An Analysis of 45 Fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67 (8) 1962–1972. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.
[30] Thelwall, M., Thelwall, M. (2017). Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69 (2) 174–183. http://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0028.
[31] Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., Wouters, P. (2014). How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of “alternative metrics” in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 101, 1491–1513. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1264-08.