Usage bibliometrics

Kurtz, Michael J.; Bollen, Johan

doi:10.1002/aris.2010.1440440108

Cited by 122 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 136 publications

(240 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is consistent with observations made by Kurtz et al (2005aKurtz et al ( , 2005b and Kurtz & Bollen (2010).…”

Section: The Ratio Of Downloads and Citationssupporting

confidence: 94%

“…Nicholas et al (2005) distinguished three main user categories: practitioners, researchers and undergraduates. Kurtz & Bollen (2010) added a fourth category: the interested public. Of these four categories, researchers tend to publish papers -and cite other articles -in the scientific literature, but members from the other three categories tend to publish less research articles or no articles at all.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But the time delays with which the assumed effects are visible are different. (e.g., Kurtz et al, 2005b;Moed, 2005;Kurtz & Bollen, 2010;). Kurtz et al (2005b) (Kurtz & Bollen, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(e.g., Kurtz et al, 2005b;Moed, 2005;Kurtz & Bollen, 2010;). Kurtz et al (2005b) (Kurtz & Bollen, 2010). Usage data do not only relate to sheer counts of downloads from publication archives, but also to contextual information on other documents downloaded by the same user, or to sharing or annotating of documents in reference managers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

On full text download and citation distributions in scientific‐scholarly journals

Moed

Halevi

2015

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A statistical analysis of full text downloads of articles in Elsevier's ScienceDirect covering all disciplines reveals large differences in download frequencies, their skewness, and their correlation with Scopus-based citation counts, between disciplines, journals, and document types. Download counts tend to be two orders of magnitude higher and less skewedly distributed than citations. A mathematical model based on the sum of two exponentials does not adequately capture monthly download counts. The degree of correlation at the article level within a journal is similar to that at the journal level in the discipline covered by that journal, suggesting that the differences between journals are to a large extent discipline-specific. Despite the fact that in all study journals download and citation counts per article positively correlate, little overlap may exist between the set of articles appearing in the top of the citation distribution and that with the most frequently downloaded ones. Usage and citation leaks, bulk downloading, differences between reader and author populations in a subject field, the type of document or its content, differences in obsolescence patterns between downloads and citations, different functions of reading and citing in the research process, all provide possible explanations of differences between download and citation distributions.

show abstract

“…This is consistent with observations made by Kurtz et al (2005aKurtz et al ( , 2005b and Kurtz & Bollen (2010).…”

Section: The Ratio Of Downloads and Citationssupporting

confidence: 94%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But the time delays with which the assumed effects are visible are different. (e.g., Kurtz et al, 2005b;Moed, 2005;Kurtz & Bollen, 2010;). Kurtz et al (2005b) (Kurtz & Bollen, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On full text download and citation distributions in scientific‐scholarly journals

Moed

Halevi

2015

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, there are positive correlations between downloads and citations, most downloaded articles are those that are more likely to receive citations (O'Leary, 2008;Lippi and Favaloro, 2012). Article download is one of the first alternative metrics to be introduced in digital library (Bollen et al, 2009;Kurtz and Bollen, 2010), while link analysis at article-level is even earlier to be used as altmetrics indicators for research evaluation (Kousha and Thelwall, 2007a,b (Wang et al, 2014(Wang et al, , 2016. The blooming of usage data inspires many studies from various perspectives, i.e., exploring researchers' working habits according to the time of article downloads (Wang et al, 2012), the temporal trends of article downloads after publication (Wang et al, 2014;Duan and Xiong, 2017;Khan and Younas, 2017).…”

Section: Correlation Between Downloads and Citationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Media Attention Increases Article Visits: An Investigation on Article-Level Referral Data of PeerJ

Wang

Cui

et al. 2017

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to better understand the effect of social media in the dissemination of scholarly articles, employing the daily updated referral data of 110 PeerJ articles collected over a period of 345 days, we analyze the relationship between social media attention and article visitors directed by social media. Our results show that social media presence of PeerJ articles is high. About 68.18% of the papers receive at least one tweet from Twitter accounts other than @PeerJ, the official account of the journal. Social media attention increases the dissemination of scholarly articles. Altmetrics could not only act as the complement of traditional citation measures but also play an important role in increasing the article downloads and promoting the impacts of scholarly articles. There also exists a significant correlation among the online attention from different social media platforms. Articles with more Facebook shares tend to get more tweets. The temporal trends show that social attention comes immediately following publication but does not last long, so do the social media directed article views.

show abstract

Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows

Mohammadi

Thelwall

2014

Asso for Info Science & Tech

212

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although there is evidence that counting the readers of an article in the social reference site, Mendeley, may help to capture its research impact, the extent to which this is true for different scientific fields is unknown. This study compares Mendeley readership counts with citations for different social sciences and humanities disciplines. The overall correlation between Mendeley readership counts and citations for the social sciences was higher than for the humanities. Low and medium correlations between Mendeley bookmarks and citation counts in all the investigated disciplines suggest that these measures reflect different aspects of research impact. Mendeley data was also used to discover patterns of information flow between scientific fields. Comparing information flows based on Mendeley bookmarking data and cross disciplinary citation analysis for the disciplines revealed substantial similarities and some differences. Thus, the evidence from this study suggests that Mendeley readership data could be used to help capture knowledge transfer across scientific disciplines, especially for people that read but do not author articles, as well as giving impact evidence at an earlier stage than is possible with citation counts.

show abstract

Usage bibliometrics

Cited by 122 publications

References 136 publications

On full text download and citation distributions in scientific‐scholarly journals

On full text download and citation distributions in scientific‐scholarly journals

Social Media Attention Increases Article Visits: An Investigation on Article-Level Referral Data of PeerJ

Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About