Analysis of Nursing scientific output and its readers in Mendeley
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26512/rici.v14.n1.2021.31979Keywords:
Mendeley, Altmetrics, Nursing, Bibliometrics, Social mediaAbstract
The research aimed to determine who are the largest producers of scientific papers in Nursing at the country level and to identify the profile of readers in Mendeley, their origin, academic or professional qualification and field of study or work. The study used descriptive and statistical methods for bibliometric and altmetric analysis of 72,040 papers published in journals indexed in the field of Nursing on the Web of Science between 2008 and 2017. The papers were published by authors from 150 countries, of which 20 hold 90.5% of total output. The United States sign 46.03% of nursing papers, followed by Australia (9.25%), United Kingdom (7.52%), Brazil (7.52%) and Canada (5.29%). The countries with the great volume of readers in Mendeley are the United States (19.53%), the United Kingdom (16.83%), Spain (11.20%), Canada (9.31%) and Brazil (4.97%). The readers predominant academic status is that of students (61.2%), especially graduate students, followed by researchers (10.7%) and professors (6.2%). The majority of readers are from “Science and Technology: Life Sciences and Biomedicine” (56.2%). The research concludes that the countries that publish more Nursing papers are also the ones that have the biggest volume of readers in Mendeley.
Keywords: Mendeley. Altmetrics. Nursing. Bibliometrics. Social media.
Downloads
References
ARAUJO, R. F. Mídias sociais e comunicação científica: análise altmétrica em artigos de periódicos da Ciência da Informação. Em Questão, Porto Alegre, v. 21, n. 1, 2015. https://doi.org/10.19132/1808-5245211.96-109
ARMBRUSTER, C. Access, usage and citation metrics: what function for digital libraries and repositories in research evaluation? SSRN, 2008. Disponível em: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1088453. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1088453
BAR-ILAN, J. et al. Beyond citations: scholars’ visibility on the social web. In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INDICATORS, 17., 2012, Montreal, Canadá. Proceedings... Montreal: ICSTI, 2012. p. 98-109.
BARNETT, G. A.; FINK, E. L. Impact of the internet and scholar age distribution on academic citation age. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 59, n. 4, p. 526”“534, 2008.
BARTHEL, S. et al. What does Twitter measure? Influence of diverse user groups in altmetrics. In: ACM/IEEE JOINT CONFERENCE ON DIGITAL LIBRARIES, 15., 2015, Knoxville, USA. Proceedings… New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2015. Disponível em: http://www.ifis.cs.tu-bs.de/sites/default/files/JCDL2015_camera-ready.pdf
BORNMANN, L. Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, v. 8, p. 895-903, 2014.
BORNMANN, L.; HAUNSCHILD, R. Do altmetrics correlate with the quality of papers? A large-scale empirical study based on F1000Prime data. PLoS ONE, v. 13, n. 5, e0197133, 2018.
CHO, J. A comparative study of the impact of Korean research articles in four academic fields using altmetrics. Performance Measurement and Metrics, v. 18, n. 1, p. 38”“51, 2017.
COLLEDGE, L. Snowball metrics recipe book. Amsterdam: Snowball Metrics Program Partners, 2014.
COSTAS, R.; ZAHEDI, Z.; WOUTERS, P. Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 66, n. 10, p. 2003”“2019, 2015.
DAS, A. K.; MISHRA, S. Genesis of altmetrics or article-level metrics for measuring efficacy of scholarly communications: current perspectives. Journal of Scientometric Research, v. 3, p. 82-92, 2014.
DINSMORE, A.; ALLEN, L.; DOLBY, K. Alternative perspectives on impact: the potential of ALMs and altmetrics to inform funders about research impact. PLoS Biology, vol. 12, n. 11, e1002003, 2014.
ELDAKAR, M.A.M. Who reads international Egyptian academic articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley readership categories. Scientometrics, v. 121, n. 1, p. 105”“135, 2019.
ERDT, M. et al. Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media. Scientometrics, v. 106, n. 1, p. 1-16, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1788-y
EYSENBACH, G. Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, v. 13, n. 4, e123, 2011.
FORTUNATO, S. et al. Science of science. Science, Londres, v. 359, n. 6379, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao0185
GINGRAS, Y. et al. The effects of aging on researchers’ publication and citation patterns. PLoS ONE, v. 3, n. 12, e4048, 2008.
GOUVEIA, F. C.; LANG, P. Da webometria à altmetria: uma jornada por uma ciência emergente. In: ALBAGLI, S (Org.). Fronteiras da Ciência da Informação. Brasília: IBICT, 2013.
HAUNSCHILD, R.; BORNMANN, L.; LEYDESDORFF, L. Networks of reader and country status: an analysis of Mendeley reader statistics. Peer Journal Computer Science, v. 1, e32, 2015.
HAUSTEIN, S.; LARIVIÈRE, V. Mendeley as the source of global readership by students and postdocs? In: IATUL CONFERENCE, 35., 2014, Espoo, Finland. Proceedings… Espoo: IATUL, 2014.
HAUSTEIN, S. et al. Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: how do these two social media metrics differ? IT-Information Technology, v. 56, n. 5, p. 207”“215, 2014a.
HAUSTEIN, S. et al. Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics, New York, v. 101, n. 2, p. 1145-1163, 2014b.
JONES, T. H.; DONOVAN, C.; HANNEY, S. Tracing the wider impacts of biomedical research: a literature search to develop a novel citation categorization technique. Scientometrics, v. 93, n. 1, p. 125”“134, 2012.
LI, X.; THELWALL, M. F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INDICATORS, 17., 2012, Montreal, Canadá. Proceedings… Montreal: ICSTI, 2012.
LI, X.; THELWALL, M.; GIUSTINI, D. Validating online reference managers for scholarly
impact measurement. Scientometrics, v. 91, p. 461”“471, 2012
MAFLAHI, N.; THELWALL, M. When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 67, n. 1, p. 191”“199, 2016.
MALEKI, A. Mendeley readership impact of academic articles of Iran. In: INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMETRICS CONFERENCE, 15., 2015, Istanbul, Turquia. Proceedings... Istanbul: ISSI, 2015.
MAS BLEDA, A. et al. European highly cited scientists’ presence in the social web. In: INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMETRICS CONFERENCE, 14., 2013, Viena, Áustria. Proceedings… Viena: ISSI, 2013.
MENDELEY. Groups: using Mendeley's groups functionality helps to manage and expand your research. 2020. Disponível em: https://www.mendeley.com/guides/groups
MOED, H. F. Citation analysis in research evaluation. Berlin: Springer, 2006.
MOHAMMADI, E.; THELWALL, M. Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology v. 65, n. 8, p. 1627”“1638, 2014.
MOHAMMADI, E. et al. Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 66, n. 9, p. 1832”“1846, 2015.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION. Science and engineering indicators 2020. Alexandria: NSF, 2020. Disponível em: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20206/publication-output-by-region-country-or-economy
ORGANIZAÇÃO DAS NAÇÕES UNIDAS PARA A EDUCAÇÃO, A CIÊNCIA E A CULTURA. Relatório de Ciência da UNESCO: rumo a 2030: visão geral e cenário brasileiro. Paris: UNESCO, 2015.
PRADHAN, P. Analysis of Mendeley readership activities of Indian information and library science literature indexed in Web of Science. In: ICMBL CONFERENCE, Odisha, India, Proceedings… Odisha, 2016.
PRIEM, J.; PIWOWAR, H. A.; HEMMINGER, B. M. Altmetrics in the wild: using social media to explore scholarly impact. 2012. Disponível em: https://arxiv.org/html/1203.4745
SAID, A. et al. Mining network-level properties of Twitter altmetrics data. Scientometrics, v. 120, n. 1, p. 217-235, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03112-0
SILVA FILHO, R. C.; VANZ, S. A. Impacto de altmetrics sobre a visibilidade de artigos em acesso aberto da enfermagem brasileira: um estudo de caso. Transinformação, Campinas, v. 31, e190025, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0889201931e190025
THELWALL, M. Journal impact evaluation: a webometric perspective. Scientometrics, v. 92, n.2, p. 429”“441, 2012.
THELWALL, M. Why do papers have many Mendeley readers but few Scopus-indexed citations and vice versa? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, v. 49, n. 2, p. 144”“151, 2017.
THELWALL, M.; WILSON, P. Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 67, n. 8, p. 1962”“1972, 2016.
TORRES SALINAS, D.; CABEZAS CLAVIJO, A.; JIMÉNEZ CONTRERAS, E. Altmetrics: nuevos indicadores para la comunicación científica en la Web 2.0. Comunicar, Huelva, v. 41, 2013.
VANZ, S. A. S.; SILVA FILHO, R. C. O protagonismo das revistas na comunicação científica: histórico e evolução. In: CARNEIRO, F. F. B.; FERREIRA NETO, A.; SANTOS, W. (Org.). A comunicação científica em periódicos. Curitiba: Appris, 2019. p. 19-44.
WILSDON, J. et al. The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 2015.
WORK, S. et al. Social media in scholarly communication. A review of the literature and empirical analysis of Twitter use by SSHRC Doctoral Award Recipients. Montreal: CRCTSC, 2015.
WOUTERS, P. The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management). London: HEFCE, 2015.
WOUTERS, P; ZAHEDI, Z.; COSTAS, R. Social media metrics for new research evaluation. In: GLÄNZEL, W. et al. (Ed.). Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. Berlin: Springer, 2018.
YU, H. et al. Who posts scientific tweets? An investigation into the productivity, locations, and identities of scientific tweeters, Journal of Informetrics, v. 13, n. 3, p. 841-855, 2019.
ZAHEDI, Z; COSTAS, R; WOUTERS, P. How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of `alternative metrics' in scientific publications. Scientometrics, v. 101, p. 1491-1513, 2014.
ZAHEDI, Z.; VAN ECK, N. J. Exploring topics of interest of Mendeley users. Journal of Altmetrics, v. 1, n. 1, p. 5, 2018.
ZAHEDI, Z.; COSTAS, R.; WOUTERS, P. Assessing the impact of the publications read by the different Mendeley users: Is there any different pattern among users? In: IATUL CONFERENCE, 35., 2014, Espoo, Finland. Proceedings… Espoo: IATUL, 2014.
ZAHEDI, Z.; COSTAS, R.; WOUTERS, P. How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics, v. 101, n. 2, p. 1491”“1513, 2014b.
ZAHEDI, Z.; COSTAS, R.; WOUTERS, P. Do Mendeley readership counts help to filter highly cited WoS publications better than average Citation Impact of Journals (JCS)? 2015. Disponível em: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1507/1507.02093.pdf
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Rubens da Costa Silva Filho, Samile Andrea de Souza Vanz
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright Notice
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, allowing the sharing of work and recognition of the work of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to take on additional contracts separately, non-exclusive distribution of the version of the paper published in this journal (ex.: distribute to an institutional repository or publish as a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to distribute their work online (eg.: in institutional repositories or on their website) at any point before or during the editorial process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as increase the impact and citation the published work.