Testing for universality of Mendeley readership distributions

D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea; Russo, Samuele Di

doi:10.1016/j.joi.2019.03.011

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the limits to the claim of universality of citation distributions have been established. Subsequent studies (Chatterjee et al, 2016;Evans et al, 2012) extended the scaling conjecture of Radicchi et al (2008) to sets of publications belonging to different journals, institutions, and even to Mendeley readerships (D'Angelo & Di Russo, 2019). In general, these works supported the purported scaling/universality but with some limitations; namely, research fields with a high number of uncited papers showed significant deviations from the universal distribution.…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Universality of citation distributions: A new understanding

Golosovsky

2021

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Universality of scaled citation distributions was claimed a decade ago (F. Radicchi, S. Fortunato, and C. Castellano, PNAS, 105(45), 17268 (2008)) but its theoretical justification has been lacking so far. Here, we study citation distributions for three disciplines- Physics, Economics, and Mathematics- and assess them using our explanatory model of citation dynamics. The model posits that the citation count of a paper is determined by its fitness- the attribute, which, for most papers, is set at the moment of publication. In addition, the papers’ citation count is related to the process by which the knowledge about this paper propagates in the scientific community. Our measurements indicate that the fitness distribution for different disciplines is nearly identical and can be approximated by the log-normal distribution, while the viral propagation process is discipline-specific. The model explains which sets of citation distributions can be scaled and which can not. In particular, we show that the near-universal shape of the citation distributions for different disciplines and for different citation years traces its origin to the nearly universal fitness distribution, while deviations from this shape are associated with the discipline-specific citation dynamics of papers. Peer Review https://publons.com/publon/10.1162/qss_a_00127

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Universality of citation distributions: A new understanding

Golosovsky

2021

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The paper shows that biological journals in Web of Science and Mendeley demonstrate the same Wakeby distribution of topological rank (cf. [25], [41], [72]). This finding suggests that biological journals in Web of Science and Mendeley are subjected to an analogous ranking, being influenced by a socially similar communication environment and selection mechanism.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data from several studies suggest that Mendeley reader counts may possibly predict future citations [32], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. However, the adoption of new data and sources provides not only new insights into scholarly communication but also new pressing problems for scientometrics (see, e.g., [41], [48], [49], [50]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the topological rank of journals in Web of Science and Mendeley

Katchanov

Markova

Shmatko

2019

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, there has been a surge of interest in new data emerged due to the rapid development of the information technologies in scholarly communication. Since the 2010s, altmetrics has become a common trend in scientometric research. However, researchers have not treated in much detail the question of the probability distributions underlying these new data. The principal objective of this study was to investigate one of the classic problems of scientometrics—the problem of citation and readership distributions. The study is based on the data obtained from two information systems: Web of Science and Mendeley. Here we based on the concept of the cumulative empirical distribution function to explore the differences and similarities between citations and readership counts of biological journals indexed in Web of Science and Mendeley. The basic idea was to determine, for any journal, a “size” (it is said to be the topological rank) of citation and readership empirical cumulative distributions, and then to compare distributions of the topological ranks of Web of Science and Mendeley. In order to verify our model, we employ it to the bibliometric and altmetric research of 305 biological journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports 2015. The findings show that both distributions of the topological rank of biological journals are statistically close to the Wakeby distribution. The findings presented in this study add to our understanding of information processes of the scholarly communication in the new digital environment.

show abstract

“…In general, however, this correlation was not found to be statistically significant, even though it is still positive. Weaker correlation, according to some authors, does not mean that alternative indicators are not suitable to measure success in science, but they are indicators of a different kind than citations and their usefulness lies in the ability to quantify the interest and attention of a wider public (Alhoori & Furuta, 2014;D'Angelo & Di Russo, 2019).…”

Section: Previous Research In Altmetricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bibliometrics versus altmetrics: Researchers’ attitudes in Slovakia

Michaela

Ondrišová

Šušol

2021

Iberoam J Sci Meas Comm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. The paper presents principal theoretical starting points and an overview of attitudes to altmetrics-based research evaluation among scientists of various disciplines in Slovakia, more specifically in comparison with traditional, bibliometric approaches. Design/Methodology/Approach. We used a questionnaire and asked researchers from various disciplines about their knowledge of principle characteristics defining the altmetrics and about their attitudes towards the application of bibliometrics and altmetrics approaches in the processes of research evaluation. The questionnaire covered a wide range of issues, predominantly associated with interpretation and perception of the importance of alternative indicators, including the factors influencing the interpretation. In this analysis, we concentrate on those parts of research reflecting the willingness of respondents to accept alternative indicators as part of research/science assessment. Results/Discussion. The attitude to the application of alternative indicators in research assessment is not significantly more negative among Slovak scientists if we compare it to other countries. The citations are still a respected indicator perceived as a tool for creating bonds within science. If they are perceived as obsolete or insufficient, it relates to the experience of researchers whose results are predominantly aimed at non-academic target group or if they are active in the research of social phenomena and problems. Due to pragmatic reasons connected with research financing, however, registering the citations is a generally accepted priority. Familiarity and practical experience with social media were identified as one of the factors influencing the interpretation of alternative indicators in the environment of both public and academic media. Conclusions. Traditional bibliometric methods, especially in the area of research evaluation, are still preferred over the altmetrics. The scientists realize that the kind of attention captured by the indicators based on social media is not comparable with the citation-based impact. Or, more precisely, that altmetrics reflects a different kind of impact whose correspondence with a traditional world of bibliographic citations remains to be explored. Originality/Value. The article presents the results of original research carried out in the community of scientists in Slovakia, applying quantitative research methods. It contributes to the results of previous studies on the attitudes and acceptance of altmetrics in the research community, with a special focus on research assessment.

show abstract

Testing for universality of Mendeley readership distributions

Cited by 13 publications

References 39 publications

Universality of citation distributions: A new understanding

Universality of citation distributions: A new understanding

Comparing the topological rank of journals in Web of Science and Mendeley

Bibliometrics versus altmetrics: Researchers’ attitudes in Slovakia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About