Successfully reported this slideshow.

Field-weighting readership: how does it compare to field-weighting citations?

2

Share

| 0
Sarah Huggett, Chris James, Eleonora Palmaro
AROSIM 2018
Altmetrics for Research Outputs Measurement
and Scholarly Inf...
| 1
Elsevier and information analytics
| 2
Key Findings
• There is a strong correlation between publications read (Mendeley
reads) and publications cited (Scopus...

YouTube videos are no longer supported on SlideShare

View original on YouTube

1 of 12
1 of 12

Field-weighting readership: how does it compare to field-weighting citations?

2

Share

Download to read offline

Field-weighting readership: how does it compare to field-weighting citations?

Authors: Sarah Huggett, Eleonora Palmaro, Christopher James

Workshop Website: http://www.altmetrics.ntuchess.com/AROSIM2018/

Field-weighting readership: how does it compare to field-weighting citations?

Authors: Sarah Huggett, Eleonora Palmaro, Christopher James

Workshop Website: http://www.altmetrics.ntuchess.com/AROSIM2018/

More Related Content

More from Aravind Sesagiri Raamkumar

Related Books

Free with a 14 day trial from Scribd

See all

Field-weighting readership: how does it compare to field-weighting citations?

  1. 1. | 0 Sarah Huggett, Chris James, Eleonora Palmaro AROSIM 2018 Altmetrics for Research Outputs Measurement and Scholarly Information Management Field-Weighting Readership: How Does it Compare to Field- Weighting Citations?
  2. 2. | 1 Elsevier and information analytics
  3. 3. | 2 Key Findings • There is a strong correlation between publications read (Mendeley reads) and publications cited (Scopus citations). To some extent this is a function of size. Mendeley readers geographic distribution may also play a role. • There is a strong correlation between FWRI and FWCI, thereby removing any size effect, as well as any specialisation effect. • For most fields except the Humanities there appears to be a small FWRI advantage, particularly pronounced in the Agricultural and Social Sciences. Variations per country overall tend to hold true per field.
  4. 4. | 3 Size matters: correlation between reads and cites
  5. 5. | 4 Effect of Mendeley readers geographic distribution?
  6. 6. | 5 FWCI and FWRI: normalising for size, age, type, field
  7. 7. | 6 Size is not all: correlation between FWCI and FWRI
  8. 8. | 7 Variations per country tend to hold true per OECD field
  9. 9. | 8 The FWRI advantage
  10. 10. | 9 Conclusions • There is a strong correlation between number of papers cited and read per country, which doesn’t appear to be solely a function of size. • The correlation between FWRI and FWCI is lower but still strong. Variations per country tend to hold true per field. • Specific regional patterns may be influenced by the geographic distribution of Mendeley readers. • FWRI appears as a robust metrics that can offer a useful complement to FWCI, in that it provides insights on a different part of the scholarly communications cycle. • More detailed analyses are welcome to further test the metrics at different aggregation levels. It would also be interesting to see how it compares to other indicator types (e.g. downloads, views, altmetrics).
  11. 11. | 10 www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence Thank you Any questions? s.huggett@elsevier.com

×