What is the impact of the publications read by the different Mendeley users? ...Zohreh Zahedi
The online reference manager tool Mendeley is one of the most promising tools for altmetrics research (Li, Thelwall and Giustini, 2011;Wouters & Costas, 2012) and it has been already used in other previous studies (Bar-Ilan et al., 2012b; Li, Thelwall and Giustini, 2012; Priem, Piwowar & Hemminger, 2012; Zahedi, Costas & Wouters; 2013). Most of studies investigated how altmetrics capture different type of impact compare to citations (some of them mentioned above); while in others the focus has been on how altmetrics can be used as predictor of citations (Waltman & Costas, 2013); also weak correlation among users’ tag and bookmarks as an indicator of journal usage and perception and citations observed for physical journals (Haustein, & Siebenlist, 2011). In the case of Mendeley, the correlation with citations has been observed to be higher (Bar-Ilan et al., 2012a; Bar-Ilan et al., 2012b; Priem, Piwowar & Hemminger, 2012; Li, Thelwall and Giustini, 2012; Li & Thelwall, 2012; Zahedi, Costas & Wouters; 2013), however, so far the relationship of the different types of readers with the impact of the publications has not yet been explored. For this reason, in this study, we present an exploratory analysis of the patterns of reading of the different types of users in Mendeley and we study their relationship with citations. Thus, our main objective is to know if there are different patterns in terms of impact depending on the different ‘career stages’, ‘disciplines’ and ‘countries’ of the readers in Mendeley. In the case of finding different types of impact and reading patterns among Mendeley readers, this could open the door to detect different types of impact (e.g. education impact or professional impact) and even to introduce the possibility of considering the different users as potential predicting elements of citations. Methodology & preliminary results: In this research we have studied two random samples of publications from the Web of Science: the first one containing 20,000 publications published between 2005 and 2011 from all disciplines, and the second sample include 200,000 publications published between 2011 and 2012 also from all disciplines. Both gathered during March and April 2013 via the Mendeley API and using the DOI of the publications as the linking element. For the two samples we have also calculated standard bibliometric indicators (Waltman et al., 2011). For the analysis of the users we have considered the information of the top three ‘career stage users’, ‘countries’ and ‘disciplines’ of the users. We acknowledge the limitation of counting only with the top three and we discuss this in the paper. Some preliminary results show that PhD students tend to read papers with higher impact than other users and also they read more recent papers. Further research will be done in order to explore other potential factors that can influence this observation.
Broad altmetric analysis of Mendeley readerships through the ‘academic status...Zohreh Zahedi
This study explores the readerships in Mendeley across 5 major fields of science in Leiden Ranking 2013 for a data set of 1,107,917 Web of Science (WoS) publications (reviews and articles) from all disciplines published in 2011 with DOI available. The main objective is to know if there are different patterns in terms of readership and citation impact depending on the different ‘Academic Status’ of Mendeley readers. In case of finding different pattern, this could help to introduce the possibility of considering the different users as potential predicting elements of citations.
The current study is built upon the previous study of analyzing Mendeley users with focus on the types of the different Mendeley users (known users) in order to explore their patterns of saving publications in terms of subject fields, citation and readership impact. Particular attention has been paid to the extent to which the readerships of the publications saved by the different types of users in Mendeley correlate with their citation indicators and across 5 major fields of science in the Leiden Ranking (LR); also, the potential of identifying highly cited papers by different user types in Mendeley has been investigated. For this reason, we present an exploratory analysis of the patterns of reading of the different types of users in Mendeley and we study their relationship with citations and across LR fields.
Invited talk on "why altmetrics?" at the information day "Bibliometrics, Scientometrics & Alternative metrics: which tools for which strategies?”, Association des directeurs et personnels de direction des bibliothèques universitaires et de la documentation (ADBU), 1st April 2015, BULAC, France (Paris)
What is the impact of the publications read by the different Mendeley users? ...Zohreh Zahedi
The online reference manager tool Mendeley is one of the most promising tools for altmetrics research (Li, Thelwall and Giustini, 2011;Wouters & Costas, 2012) and it has been already used in other previous studies (Bar-Ilan et al., 2012b; Li, Thelwall and Giustini, 2012; Priem, Piwowar & Hemminger, 2012; Zahedi, Costas & Wouters; 2013). Most of studies investigated how altmetrics capture different type of impact compare to citations (some of them mentioned above); while in others the focus has been on how altmetrics can be used as predictor of citations (Waltman & Costas, 2013); also weak correlation among users’ tag and bookmarks as an indicator of journal usage and perception and citations observed for physical journals (Haustein, & Siebenlist, 2011). In the case of Mendeley, the correlation with citations has been observed to be higher (Bar-Ilan et al., 2012a; Bar-Ilan et al., 2012b; Priem, Piwowar & Hemminger, 2012; Li, Thelwall and Giustini, 2012; Li & Thelwall, 2012; Zahedi, Costas & Wouters; 2013), however, so far the relationship of the different types of readers with the impact of the publications has not yet been explored. For this reason, in this study, we present an exploratory analysis of the patterns of reading of the different types of users in Mendeley and we study their relationship with citations. Thus, our main objective is to know if there are different patterns in terms of impact depending on the different ‘career stages’, ‘disciplines’ and ‘countries’ of the readers in Mendeley. In the case of finding different types of impact and reading patterns among Mendeley readers, this could open the door to detect different types of impact (e.g. education impact or professional impact) and even to introduce the possibility of considering the different users as potential predicting elements of citations. Methodology & preliminary results: In this research we have studied two random samples of publications from the Web of Science: the first one containing 20,000 publications published between 2005 and 2011 from all disciplines, and the second sample include 200,000 publications published between 2011 and 2012 also from all disciplines. Both gathered during March and April 2013 via the Mendeley API and using the DOI of the publications as the linking element. For the two samples we have also calculated standard bibliometric indicators (Waltman et al., 2011). For the analysis of the users we have considered the information of the top three ‘career stage users’, ‘countries’ and ‘disciplines’ of the users. We acknowledge the limitation of counting only with the top three and we discuss this in the paper. Some preliminary results show that PhD students tend to read papers with higher impact than other users and also they read more recent papers. Further research will be done in order to explore other potential factors that can influence this observation.
Broad altmetric analysis of Mendeley readerships through the ‘academic status...Zohreh Zahedi
This study explores the readerships in Mendeley across 5 major fields of science in Leiden Ranking 2013 for a data set of 1,107,917 Web of Science (WoS) publications (reviews and articles) from all disciplines published in 2011 with DOI available. The main objective is to know if there are different patterns in terms of readership and citation impact depending on the different ‘Academic Status’ of Mendeley readers. In case of finding different pattern, this could help to introduce the possibility of considering the different users as potential predicting elements of citations.
The current study is built upon the previous study of analyzing Mendeley users with focus on the types of the different Mendeley users (known users) in order to explore their patterns of saving publications in terms of subject fields, citation and readership impact. Particular attention has been paid to the extent to which the readerships of the publications saved by the different types of users in Mendeley correlate with their citation indicators and across 5 major fields of science in the Leiden Ranking (LR); also, the potential of identifying highly cited papers by different user types in Mendeley has been investigated. For this reason, we present an exploratory analysis of the patterns of reading of the different types of users in Mendeley and we study their relationship with citations and across LR fields.
Invited talk on "why altmetrics?" at the information day "Bibliometrics, Scientometrics & Alternative metrics: which tools for which strategies?”, Association des directeurs et personnels de direction des bibliothèques universitaires et de la documentation (ADBU), 1st April 2015, BULAC, France (Paris)
2. PENGENALAN
• Windows movie maker adalah salah
satu perisian yang digunakan untuk
penghasilan ataupun pengubahsuaian
sebuah video.
• Perisian ini tersedia ada di dalam
Windows Xp,Windows Vista dan
Windows 7.
3. JENIS – JENIS VIDEO
• Video Analog
• Video Digital
JENIS – JENIS PERISIAN
•Adobe Premier
•Ulead Studio
•Pineacle
4. CIRI –CIRI
• Penghasilan video menggunakan elemen
– elemen di dalam multimedia seperti teks,
grafik, audio dan sebagainya.
• Video yang dihasilkan lebih menarik dan
corak persembahan yang hidup.
• Salah satu kaedah penyaluran maklumat
dengan lebih berkesan.
5. KELEBIHAN
• Mudah dan senang digunakan.
• Perisian percuma tidak perlu
menginstall program.
• Perisian mesra pengguna.
• Tidak memerlukan perkakasan yang
lain untuk tujan main semula.
6. Sambungan…
• Sumber penghasilan video adalah seperti
gambar, gambar animasi, bina, video atau
movie pendek, klip video serta mp3.
• Video yang dihasilkan boleh diedit dan
diubahsai dengan lebih mudah.
7. KELEMAHAN
• Saiz fail yang diperlukan bagi menyimpan
video adalah agak besar.
• Mudah untk dibuat salinan.
• Sumber yang digunakan seperti mp3 dan
klip video serta lagu mestilah ditukar
kepada format wav.
8. Sambungan…
• Kekangan dari sudut saiz fail yang besar
dari sumber yang digunakan.
• Kadar pemindahan data yang rendah dan
masa yang digunakan agak lama.
9. KESIMPULAN
• Memudahkan untuk penghasilan video
atau movie yang pendek.
• Ia mudah digunakan dan perisian secara
percuma.
• Perisian yang mesra pengguna
