Networks of reader and country status: an analysis of Mendeley reader statistics

The number of papers published in journals indexed by the Web of Science core collection is steadily increasing. In recent years, nearly two million new papers were published each year; somewhat more than one million papers when primary research papers are considered only (articles and reviews are the document types where primary research is usually reported or reviewed). However, who reads these papers? More precisely, which groups of researchers from which (self-assigned) scientific disciplines and countries are reading these papers? Is it possible to visualize readership patterns for certain countries, scientific disciplines, or academic status groups? One popular method to answer these questions is a network analysis. In this study, we analyze Mendeley readership data of a set of 1,133,224 articles and 64,960 reviews with publication year 2012 to generate three different networks: (1) The network based on disciplinary affiliations of Mendeley readers contains four groups: (i) biology, (ii) social sciences and humanities (including relevant computer sciences), (iii) bio-medical sciences, and (iv) natural sciences and engineering. In all four groups, the category with the addition "miscellaneous" prevails. (2) The network of co-readers in terms of professional status shows that a common interest in papers is mainly shared among PhD students, Master’s students, and postdocs. (3) The country network focusses on global readership patterns: a group of 53 nations is identified as core to the scientific enterprise, including Russia and China as well as two thirds of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries.

[1]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  Assessing the Impact of Publications Saved by Mendeley Users: Is There Any Different Pattern Among Users? , 2014 .

[2]  P. Bonacich Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification , 1972 .

[3]  L. Bornmann,et al.  F1000Prime: an analysis of discipline-specific reader data from Mendeley , 2015 .

[4]  Ulrik Brandes,et al.  What is network science? , 2013, Network Science.

[5]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[6]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Visualizing Bibliometric Networks , 2014 .

[7]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , 2008, 0803.0476.

[8]  Daniele Rotolo,et al.  Journal portfolio analysis for countries, cities, and organizations: Maps and comparisons , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[9]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Not all international collaboration is beneficial: The Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[10]  M. M. Kessler Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers , 1963 .

[11]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Science Visualization and Discursive Knowledge , 2012, 1206.3746.

[12]  Vladimir Batagelj,et al.  Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek , 2005 .

[13]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics , 2014, J. Informetrics.

[14]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  A review of theory and practice in scientometrics , 2015, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[15]  Stefanie N. Lindstaedt,et al.  Visualization of Co-Readership Patterns from an Online Reference Management System , 2014, J. Informetrics.

[16]  Staša Milojević,et al.  Network Analysis and Indicators , 2014 .

[17]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[18]  J. Green Response to the Call for Evidence to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment , 2014 .

[19]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Which people use which scientific papers? An evaluation of data from F1000 and Mendeley , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[20]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  A multidimensional analysis of Aslib proceedings - using everything but the impact factor , 2014, Aslib J. Inf. Manag..

[21]  Zahedi Zohreh,et al.  Visualizing readership activity of Mendeley users using VOSviewer , 2015 .

[22]  Daqing He,et al.  User participation in an academic social networking service: A survey of open group users on Mendeley , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[23]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Alternative metrics in scientometrics: a meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics , 2014, Scientometrics.

[24]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Mendeley as a Source of Readership by Students and Postdocs? Evaluating Article Usage by Academic Status , 2014 .

[25]  Diane H. Sonnenwald,et al.  Association for Information Science and Technology , 2017 .

[26]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[27]  William Gunn,et al.  Mendeley: Enabling and understanding scientific collaboration , 2014, Inf. Serv. Use.