gefördert durch das Kompetenzzentrenprogramm
ISSI 2013 – Altmetrics 2
15 July 2013
know-center.tugraz.at
Download vs. Cita...
© Know-Center 2011
2
Introduction
Many studies have compared download and citation data
(Moed 2005, Bollen & Van De Sompel...
© Know-Center 2011
3
Research Questions
Are most cited articles the most downloaded ones, and
those which can be found mos...
© Know-Center 2011
4
Data
The Journal of Strategic Information Systems (JoSIS)
“The Journal of Strategic Information Syste...
© Know-Center 2011
5
Mendeley
Online reference
management system
Organizing personal
research library
Creating user profil...
© Know-Center 2011
6
Methodology
Preprocessing
Matching documents between ScienceDirect and Scopus
 No unique key for SD ...
© Know-Center 2011
7
Results
Downloads per document type
FLAs are the most downloaded document type (94.1%)
All other docu...
© Know-Center 2011
8
Results
Print publication delay
FLAs are published online more than 1.5 months before print
publicati...
© Know-Center 2011
9
Results
Downloads per publication year (relational)
Download maximum in many cases 1 year after publi...
© Know-Center 2011
10
Results
Citations per document type
Different document types in Scopus and ScienceDirect (FLA ≈
arti...
© Know-Center 2011
11
Results
Citations per publication year
Only a few documents are cited in publication year - citation...
© Know-Center 2011
12
Results
Readers per print publication year
Relative youth of Mendeley (est. 2008), strong increase o...
© Know-Center 2011
13
Results
Downloads vs. readers vs. cites (only FLAs)
Moderate to high correlation (Spearman) between ...
© Know-Center 2011
14
Results
Readership structure of Mendeley articles
2/3 of readership counts come from students
Resear...
© Know-Center 2011
15
Conclusions
Comparison of different measures not always easy
Different obsolesence characteristics o...
gefördert durch das Kompetenzzentrenprogramm
ISSI 2013 – Altmetrics 2
15 July 2013
know-center.tugraz.at
Thank you very mu...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Download vs. Citation vs. Readership Data: The Case of an Information Systems Journal

918 views

Published on

Presentation of the paper with Christian Schlögl, Juan Goarriz, Christian Gumpenberger, and Kris Jack at ISSI 2013

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
918
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Download vs. Citation vs. Readership Data: The Case of an Information Systems Journal

  1. 1. gefördert durch das Kompetenzzentrenprogramm ISSI 2013 – Altmetrics 2 15 July 2013 know-center.tugraz.at Download vs. Citation vs. Readership Data: The Case of an Information Systems Journal (RiP)* Christian Schlögl, Juan Gorraiz, Christian Gumpenberger, Kris Jack, Peter Kraker * Research in Progress
  2. 2. © Know-Center 2011 2 Introduction Many studies have compared download and citation data (Moed 2005, Bollen & Van De Sompel 2008, Schlögl & Gorraiz 2011) Possible sources for download data Repositories/preprint archives Open access journals E-journals Recently, online reference systems have received a lot of attention as a possible source for altmetrics A few studies have compared readership and citation data (Bar-Ilan 2012, Li and Thelwall 2012 , Kraker et al. 2012) In this study, we compare citations, downloads, and readership for the Journal of Strategic Information Systems
  3. 3. © Know-Center 2011 3 Research Questions Are most cited articles the most downloaded ones, and those which can be found most frequently in user libraries of the collaborative reference management system Mendeley? Do citations, downloads, and readership have different obsolescence characteristics at publication level? Are there other features in which citation, download and readership data differ?
  4. 4. © Know-Center 2011 4 Data The Journal of Strategic Information Systems (JoSIS) “The Journal of Strategic Information Systems focuses on the management, business and organizational issues associated with the introduction and utilization of information systems as a strategic tool, and considers these issues in a global context.” http://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-journal-of-strategic-information-systems/ Period of analysis: 2002-2011; 321 documents Data sources: ScienceDirect (SD): monthly download data (PDF & HTML) Scopus: monthly citation data Mendeley: monthly additions to user libraries (full length articles)
  5. 5. © Know-Center 2011 5 Mendeley Online reference management system Organizing personal research library Creating user profile Reading and annotating of PDFs Forming private and public groups Sharing of references/PDFs Crowdsourced Mendeley research catalog 2.5 m users 428 m user documents ~75 m unique articles http://www.mendeley.com/research-papers/
  6. 6. © Know-Center 2011 6 Methodology Preprocessing Matching documents between ScienceDirect and Scopus  No unique key for SD and Scopus/Different document types between SD and Scopus  Matching via title, journal, vol/issue, page Matching documents between Scopus and Mendeley via title (Levenshtein ratio 1/15.83) – found all but 5 Descriptive statistics Document types, publication dates, downloads, readers Correlation analysis Downloads vs. cites, readers vs. Cites, downloads vs. readers
  7. 7. © Know-Center 2011 7 Results Downloads per document type FLAs are the most downloaded document type (94.1%) All other documents are downloaded at a considerably lower level Document type n % docs % downloads Downloads per doc – relations Announcement 5 1.6% 0.4% 5.9 Book review 4 1.2% 0.3% 5.5 Contents list 29 9.0% 0.4% 1.0 Editorial Board 29 9.0% 0.6% 1.5 Editorial 49 15.3% 3.3% 4.6 Erratum 1 0.3% 0.1% 5.7 Full length article 181 56.4% 94.1% 35.4 Index 12 3.7% 0.2% 1.3 Miscellaneous 9 2.8% 0.2% 1.8 Publishers note 2 0.6% 0.2% 7.0 321 100% 100% Source: ScienceDirect; n=321
  8. 8. © Know-Center 2011 8 Results Print publication delay FLAs are published online more than 1.5 months before print publication on average. Document type n Online date - print publication date (mean days) Announcement 5 -13.2 Book review 4 -40.5 Contents list 29 12.9 Editorial Board 29 12.9 Editorial 49 9.0 Erratum 1 -145.0 Full length article 181 -49.8 Index 12 -4.9 Miscellaneous 9 32.9 Publishers note 2 -13.0 321 -24.9 Source: ScienceDirect; n=321
  9. 9. © Know-Center 2011 9 Results Downloads per publication year (relational) Download maximum in many cases 1 year after publication Most downloads in a single year for FLAs published in 2011 DL-year PY n 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 all DL/ FLA 2002 13 1.0 2.3 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.4 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.7 19.6 7.4x 2003 21 0.0 1.3 2.2 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.1 11.9 2.8x 2004 17 1.7 2.6 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.9 2.3 18.9 5.5x 2005 18 1.7 2.3 1.8 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.2 15.0 4.1x 2006 14 0.2 2.4 2.1 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.0 12.5 4.4x 2007 18 0.0 2.7 3.6 3.4 3.5 2.9 16.1 4.4x 2008 16 0.0 2.9 3.5 3.0 2.4 11.8 3.6x 2009 14 3.1 4.0 3.1 10.2 3.6x 2010 21 3.9 4.4 8.3 2.0x 2011 29 0.3 5.6 5.9 1.0x all 181 1.0 3.7 5.6 6.8 8.9 11.1 16.6 21.4 26.4 29.0 130.4 Source: ScienceDirect; FLA only (n=181)
  10. 10. © Know-Center 2011 10 Results Citations per document type Different document types in Scopus and ScienceDirect (FLA ≈ articles + conference papers + reviews) Ca. 25% of all documents not cited (primarily editorials, conference papers and recent publications) Doc type no. docs % uncited Cites Cites per doc type Article 151 15% 2563 14.8 Conference paper 13 69% 8 0.4 Editorial 33 79% 13 0.2 Review 18 6% 383 20.2 All 215 27% 2967 10.9 Source: Scopus; n=215
  11. 11. © Know-Center 2011 11 Results Citations per publication year Only a few documents are cited in publication year - citation maxium is reached several years after publication Difference to downloads reaching their maximum in the year of publication or one year later Pub year n Citation year cites per doc2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 all 2002 13 2 19 38 69 88 105 158 165 194 199 1037 79.8 2003 14 1 6 21 27 39 35 41 40 39 249 17.8 2004 17 0 15 40 56 74 78 88 107 458 26.9 2005 19 0 16 46 78 76 93 99 408 21.5 2006 14 1 2 14 31 31 53 49 181 12.9 2007 18 1 31 74 92 85 283 15.7 2008 15 3 30 69 83 185 12.3 2009 14 3 34 57 94 6.7 2010 18 5 40 45 2.5 2011 8 14 14 1.8 all 150 2 20 44 106 173 261 410 498 668 772 2954 Source: Scopus; Document types: articles, reviews, conference papers; only cited documents (n=150) Special Issue on “Trust in the Digital Economy“ Special Issue with conference papers
  12. 12. © Know-Center 2011 12 Results Readers per print publication year Relative youth of Mendeley (est. 2008), strong increase of its user base since then (now: 2.5 mio) make obsolescence analyses difficult – Weighting with user/document growth needed. Pub year n Readership years Readers per doc2008 2009 2010 2011 - July 2012 all 2002 13 7 30 126 245 183 591 45.5 2003 21 1 29 58 108 145 341 17.1 2004 17 11 36 107 158 165 477 28.1 2005 18 2 31 79 141 151 404 23.8 2006 14 6 39 88 128 148 409 29.2 2007 18 4 45 129 222 209 609 35.8 2008 16 7 36 99 182 164 488 32.5 2009 14 0 27 111 127 150 415 29.6 2010 21 0 0 84 238 191 513 24.4 2011 29 0 0 4 208 282 494 17.6 all 181 38 273 885 1757 1852 4741 Source: Mendeley; FLA only (n=181)
  13. 13. © Know-Center 2011 13 Results Downloads vs. readers vs. cites (only FLAs) Moderate to high correlation (Spearman) between downloads and readers (0.73) and downloads and citations (0.77) Moderate correlation between citations and readers (r=0.51) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 readers downloads downloads vs. readers 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 cites downloads downloads vs. cites 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 cites readership readers vs. cites r=0.73, n=181 r=0.77, n=151 r=0.51, n=151
  14. 14. © Know-Center 2011 14 Results Readership structure of Mendeley articles 2/3 of readership counts come from students Researchers + Post Docs + Profs ≈ 1/4 of all readership counts 32% 7% 19% 6% 5% 5% 2% 5% 3% 3% 5% 3% 4% 1% 0% Student (PhD) Student (doctorial) Student (MA) Student (postgr.) Student (BA) Lecturer Sen. Lecturer Researcher (academic) Researcher (non-academic) Post Doc Assist. Prof. Assoc. Prof. Prof. other Librian Source: Mendeley; doc type: FLA; n=4741
  15. 15. © Know-Center 2011 15 Conclusions Comparison of different measures not always easy Different obsolesence characteristics of downloads and cites (readership to be determined) Moderate to high correlation between downloads and cites Moderate correlation between cites and readership data For representative usage measures, we need to understand their characteristics on a large scale To fully understand usage and impact of an article, it will be important to have many complementary measures with transparent biases On the one hand, we need open bibliometric data, on the other hand, we need a better understanding of the research process
  16. 16. gefördert durch das Kompetenzzentrenprogramm ISSI 2013 – Altmetrics 2 15 July 2013 know-center.tugraz.at Thank you very much for your attention! Christian Schlögl, Juan Gorraiz, Christian Gumpenberger, Kris Jack, Peter Kraker pkraker@know-center.at

×