Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2021.9.4.6

Who Reads Indian and Chinese LIS Articles on Mendeley? Scoping and Comparing User Categories Through Altmetrics  

Vysakh, C. (DOSR in Library & Information Science, Tumkur University)
Babu, H. Rajendra (DOSR in Library & Information Science, Tumkur University)
Publication Information
Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice / v.9, no.4, 2021 , pp. 75-83 More about this Journal
Abstract
Mendeley reader count is good evidence of the early impact of scientific output since it appears before citations. This paper aims to scope and compare Mendeley readers of Library and Information Science (LIS) articles published from India and China. Mendeley readership data for the highly cited 1,000 articles in Web of Science are extracted using Webometric Analyst for both countries and are analysed using Excel and SPSS. The findings reveal that LIS articles that are published from China got more readers as compared to LIS articles published from India with an excess of 97 readers per paper on Mendeley. The occupational status of readers tells that PhD students are the top readers for both the countries' publications, followed by masters students. Discipline-wise readership shows that readers were spread across 29 different fields, with the highest readers from business, management and accounting, followed by computer science for both countries' publications. Location-wise readership depicts that the top engaged readers are from the United States for both the countries' publications. Finally, the study reports a positive association between citations and Mendeley bookmarks, justifying that Mendeley readership can be used to measure the early research impact of LIS scholarship in both countries.
Keywords
Library and Information Science; Altmetrics; Mendeley; Mendeley bookmarks; Mendeley readers; readership analysis;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Nuredini, K., & Peters, I. (2015, May 19-21). Economic and business studies journals and readership information from Mendeley. In F. Pehar, C. Schloegl, & C. Wolff (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science (pp. 380-392). vwh-Verlag.
2 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23369.   DOI
3 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23071.   DOI
4 Nath, A., Jana, S., & Kerketta, S. (2020). Who reads PLOS research articles? Extensive analysis of the Mendeley readership categories of PLOS journals. Journal of Scientometric Research, 9(3), 245-252. https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.9.3.32.   DOI
5 Nath, A., Jana, S., & Santra, P. P. (2021). Characteristics of Mendeley readership for earth and planetary science articles: An exploratory study of 12 narrow Scopus fields. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 41(6), 415-423. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.41.6.16961.   DOI
6 Pradhan, P. (2016). Analysis of Mendeley readership activities of Indian information and library science literature indexed in Web of Science. Paper presented at the International Conference on Marching Beyond the Libraries: The Role of Social Media and Networking (ICMBL 2016), Bhubaneswar, India.
7 Parabhoi, L., Borgohain, T., & Sahu, R. R. (2020). Mendeley readership count: An investigation of Sambalpur University publications from 1971-2018. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8127&context=libphilprac.
8 Verma, S., & Madhusudhan, M. (2019). An altmetric comparison of highly cited digital library publications of India and China. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 66(2), 71-75. http://op.niscair.res.in/index.php/ALIS/article/view/24409/465477092.
9 Parabhoi, L., & Verma, M. K. (2020). Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology. Journal of Science and Technology Metrics, 1(2), 62-70. https://www.dline.info/jstm/fulltext/v1n2/jstmv1n2_2.pdf.
10 Pooladian, A., & Borrego, A. (2016). A longitudinal study of the bookmarking of library and information science literature in Mendeley. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1135-1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.10.003.   DOI
11 Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2017). Mendeley readership as a filtering tool to identify highly cited publications. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(10), 2511-2521. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23883.   DOI
12 Thelwall, M. (2019). Do Mendeley reader counts indicate the value of arts and humanities research? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(3), 781-788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617732381.   DOI
13 Pooladian, A., & Borrego, A. (2017). Twenty years of readership of library and information science literature under Mendeley's microscope. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 18(1), 67-77. https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-02-2016-0006.   DOI
14 Schlogl, C., Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., Jack, K., & Kraker, P. (2014). Comparison of downloads, citations and readership data for two information systems journals. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1113-1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1365-9.   DOI
15 Scimago. (2021). Scimago Journal & Country Rank. https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?category=3309&min=0&min_type=ci.
16 Thelwall, M. (2017). Why do papers have many Mendeley readers but few Scopus-indexed citations and vice versa? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 49(2), 144-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000615594867.   DOI
17 Thelwall, M. (2018). Early Mendeley readers correlate with later citation counts. Scientometrics, 115(3), 1231-1240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2715-9.   DOI
18 Thelwall, M. (2020). Mendeley reader counts for US computer science conference papers and journal articles. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 347-359. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00010.   DOI
19 Chi, P.-S., Gorraiz, J., & Glanzel, W. (2019). Comparing capture, usage and citation indicators: An altmetric analysis of journal papers in chemistry disciplines. Scientometrics, 120(3), 1461-1473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03168-y.   DOI
20 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23559.   DOI
21 Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015). The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media: Largescale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 260-288. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0173.   DOI
22 Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories. SAGE Open, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575.   DOI
23 Aung, H. H., Zheng, H., Erdt, M., Aw, A. S., Sin, S.-C. J., & Theng, Y.-L. (2019). Investigating familiarity and usage of traditional metrics and altmetrics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(8), 872-887. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24162.   DOI
24 Bornmann, L. (2014). Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 935-950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.007.   DOI
25 Chen, P.-Y., Hayes, E., Lariviere, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2018). Social reference managers and their users: A survey of demographics and ideologies. PLOS ONE, 13(7), e0198033. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198033.   DOI
26 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum Associates.
27 D'Angelo, C. A., & Di Russo, S. (2019). Testing for universality of Mendeley readership distributions. Journal of Informetrics, 13(2), 726-737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.03.011.   DOI
28 Eldakar, M. A. M. (2019). Who reads international Egyptian academic articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley readership categories. Scientometrics, 121(1), 105-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03189-7.   DOI
29 Haunschild, R., Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). Networks of reader and country status: An analysis of Mendeley reader statistics. PeerJ Computer Science. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.32.   DOI
30 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23501.   DOI