Mendeley阅读指标的情境内涵及其应用研究评述

摘要/Abstract

摘要： Mendeley阅读指标是目前最稳健的替代计量指标，具备覆盖率高、及时性好、数值较高等特点，本文旨在为其进一步研究和应用提供参考。通过评述相关文献，着重从情境内涵和应用研究两个主要热点研究方向，深入分析Mendeley阅读指标的研究进展，同时较为系统地归纳其局限性。总结来看，Mendeley阅读指标的来源数据提供了丰富的背景信息，有助于更加全面地理解学术论文的交流过程和影响对象；Mendeley阅读指标的标准化可借鉴引文指标的成熟经验，以消除国家、学科、时间等因素的影响，同时也表现出可根据目标群体进行标准化的特色；Mendeley阅读指标在多种情境下的科技评价、相关文献和学者的智能推荐，以及知识交流与结构的追踪挖掘方面，均取得了较好的应用进展。但是，该指标也存在用户分布不均、数据公开不足等局限，在实际应用中必须充分考虑其优势和不足。

Abstract: Mendeley altmetrics is so far the most robust altmetrics indicator. The context information and application research constitute the two main directions of in-depth study of this indicator. This paper aims to clarify the characteristics of the indicator by reviewing the relevant literature so as to provide reference for further research and application. In summary, source data of Mendeley altmetrics have provided abundant context information, helping better understand the communication process and impact audience of scholarly papers. Mendeley altmetrics could take lesson from the mature experience of normalization of citation indicators, to get rid of the influence of country, discipline and time etc.. Meanwhile, Mendeley altmetrics
is unique in that normalization could be conducted aiming at specific target group. Mendeley altmetrics has been well used in scientific evaluation under various circumstances, intelligent recommendation of related literature and scholars, as well as tracking and mining of knowledge f low and structure. However, the indicator also has limitation in that users are disproportionately distributed and data is not open enough.
In practices both the advantages and limitations should be taken into consideration.

余厚强（中山大学信息管理学院）曹雪婷（江苏省广播电视总台）. Mendeley阅读指标的情境内涵及其应用研究评述[J]. 图书馆杂志, 2021, 40(11): 14-21.

Yu Houqiang (School of Information Management, Sun Yat-sen University)Cao Xueting (Jiangsu Broadcasting Corporation). A Review of Context Information and Application of Mendeley#br# Readership Altmetrics[J]. Libraly Journal, 2021, 40(11): 14-21.

参考文献

[ 1 ] 余厚强. 替代计量指标与引文量相关性的大规模
跨学科研究——数值类型、指标种类与用户类
别的影响[J]. 情报学报, 2017, 36(6): 606-617.
[ 2 ] Mohammadi E, Thelwall M, Kousha K. Can
Mendeley Bookmarks Reflect Readership? A Survey
of User Motivations[J]. Journal of the Association for
Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(5):
1198-1209.
[ 3 ] 余厚强. 替代计量学: 概念、指标与应用[M]. 北
京: 科学技术文献出版社, 2019: 61.
[ 4 ] 于琦, 张昕瑞, 吴胜男, 等. Mendeley与传统引用
指标相关性的元分析[J]. 情报杂志, 2020, 39(2):
191-198.
[ 5 ] Jeng W, He D, Jiang J. User participation in an
academic social networking service: A survey of
open group users on M endeley[J]. Journal of the
Association for Information Science and Technology,
2015, 66(5): 890-904.
[ 6 ] Chen P Y, Hayes E, Larivière V, et al. Social
reference managers and their users: A survey of
demographics and ideologies[J]. PloS One, 2018,
13(7).
[ 7 ] Haustein S, Larivière V. Mendeley as a source of
readership by students and postdocs? Evaluating
article usage by academic status[EB/OL]. [2020-
02-02]. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=2033&context=iatul.
[ 8 ] Mohammadi E, Thelwall M, Haustein S, et al. Who
reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis
of Mendeley user categories[J]. Journal of the
Association for Information Science and Technology,
2015, 66(9): 1832-1846.
[ 9 ] 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? [EB/OL]. [2020-02-01]. https://openaccess.
leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/46944/Assessi
ngtheImpactofPublicationsSavedbyMendeleyUsers-
Is%281%29.pdf.
[10] Zahedi Z, Van Eck N J. Identifying topics of interest
of Mendeley users using the text mining and overlay
visualization functionality of VOSviewer[EB/OL].
[2020-02-01]. https://openaccess.leidenuniv.
nl/bitstream/handle/1887/48264/STI_Poster_
presentation_2015_Zahedi_vanEck.pdf.
[11] Zahedi Z, Van Eck N J. Exploring topics of interest of
Mendeley users[J]. Journal of Altmetrics, 2018, 1: 5.
[12] Thelwall M. Differences between journals and years
in the proportions of students, researchers and faculty
registering Mendeley articles[J]. Scientometrics,
2018, 115(2): 717-729.
[13] Bornmann L, Haunschild R. Which people use
which scientific papers? An evaluation of data from
F1000 and Mendeley[J]. Journal of informetrics,
2015, 9(3): 477-487.
[14] Zahedi Z, Van Eck N J. Visualizing readership
activity of Mendeley users using VOSviewer[EB/
OL]. [2020-01-18]. http://figshare.com/articles/
Visualizing_readership_activity_of_Mendeley_
users_using_VOSviewer/1041819.
[15] Haunschild R, Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L. Networks
of reader and country status: an analysis of Mendeley
reader statistics[J]. PeerJ Computer Science, 2015, 1:
e32.
[16] Haunschild R, Bornmann L. F1000Prime: an
analysis of discipline-specific reader data from
Mendeley[J]. F1000Research, 2015, 4(41): 41.
[17] Thelwall M, Maflahi N. Are scholarly articles
disproportionately read in their own country? An
analysis of Mendeley readers[J]. Journal of the
Association for Information Science and Technology,
2015, 66(6): 1124-1135.
[18] Maleki A. Mendeley Readership Impact of Academic
Articles of Iran[EB/OL]. [2020-02-01]. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/280923764_Mendeley_
Readership_Impact_of_Academic_Articles_of_Iran.
[19] Fairclough R, Thelwall M. National research impact
indicators from Mendeley readers[J]. Journal of
informetrics, 2015, 9(4): 845-859.
[20] Haunschild R, Bornmann L. Normalization of
Mendeley reader counts for impact assessment[J].
Journal of Informetrics, 2016, 10(1): 62-73.
[21] Bornmann L, Haunschild R. Normalization of
Mendeley reader impact on the reader-and
paper-side: A comparison of the mean discipline
normalized reader score (MDNRS) with the mean
normalized reader score (MNRS) and bare reader
counts[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2016, 10(3): 776-
788.
[22] Costas R, Perianes-Rodríguez A, Ruiz-Castillo
J. On the quest for currencies of science: Field
‘exchange rates’ for citations and Mendeley
readership[J]. Aslib Journal of Information
Management, 2017, 69(5): 557-575.
[23] Crespo J A, Li Y, Ruiz-Castillo J. The measurement
of the effect on citation inequality of differences in
citation practices across scientific fields[J]. PLoS
One, 2013, 8(3).
[24] Bornmann L, Haunschild R. Measuring fieldnormalized
impact of papers on specific societal
groups: An altmetrics study based on Mendeley
Data[J]. Research Evaluation, 2017, 26(3): 230-241.
[25] Thelwall M, Kousha K, Dinsmore A. Alternative
metric indicators for funding scheme evaluations[J].
Aslib Journal of Information Management, 2016,68(1): 2-18.
[26] Mohammadi E, Thelwall M. Readership Data and
Research Impact[EB/OL]. [2020-01-28]. https://
arxiv.xilesou.top/pdf/1901.08593.pdf.
[27] Costas R, Zahedi Z, Alperín J P. Global countrylevel
patterns of Mendeley readership performance
compared to citation performance: does Mendeley
provide a different picture on the impact of scientific
publications across countries? [C]//Proceedings of
the 17th International Conference on Scientometrics
and Informetrics (ISSI 2019), Rome, Italy, 2019:
1195-1200.
[28] Yu H, Cao X, Murat B. Readership of international
publications as measured by mendeley altmetrics:
a comparison between China and USA [C]//
Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on
Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI 2019), Rome,
Italy, 2019: 2668-2669.
[29] Z a h e d i Z , C o s t a s R , Wo u t e r s P . M e n d e l e y
readership as a filtering tool to identify highly
cited publications[J]. Journal of the Association for
Information Science and Technology, 2017, 68(10):
2511-2521.
[30] Kudlow P, Cockerill M, Toccalino D, et al. Online
distribution channel increases article usage
on Mendeley: a randomized controlled trial[J].
Scientometrics, 2017, 112(3): 1537-1556.
[31] Thelwall M. Do females create higher impact
research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers
for articles from five countries[J]. Journal of
Informetrics, 2018, 12(4): 1031-1041.
[32] Vargas S, Hristakeva M, Jack K. Mendeley:
recommendations for researchers[C]// Proceedings
of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender
Systems, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 2016: 365-
365.
[33] Rossetti M, Vargas S, Magatti D, et al. Effectively
identifying users' research interests for scholarly
r e f e r e n c e m a n a g e m e n t a n d d i s c o v e r y [ C ] / /
Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Scholarly Web
Mining. 2017: 17-24.
[34] MacMillan D. Mendeley: teaching scholarly
c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d c o l l a b o r a t i o n t h r o u g h
s o c i a l n e t w o r k i n g [ E B / O L ] . [ 2 0 2 0 - 0 2 - 0 1 ] .
https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1127&context=iatul.
[35] León-Ullauri B B, Bravo-Torres J F, Contreras-
Chacón R D, et al. Detection and recommendation of
experts/authorities of Mendeley and Twitter topics for
learning stimulation[C]//2017 CHILEAN Conference
on Electrical, Electronics Engineering, Information
and Communication Technologies. IEEE, 2017: 1-5.
[36] Mohammadi E, Thelwall M. Mendeley readership
altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities
Research evaluation and knowledge flows[J]. Journal
of the Association for Information Science and
Technology, 2014, 65(8): 1627-1638.
[37] Nuredini K, Peters I. Economic and Business
Studies Journals and Readership Information from
Mendeley[EB/OL]. [2020-02-01]. https://www.
econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/110467/1/Nuredini_
Peters_Economic_Journals_and_Readership_
Information_Mendeley.pdf.
[38] Jiang J, Ni C, He D, et al. Mendeley group as a new
source of interdisciplinarity study: how do disciplines
interact on mendeley? [EB/OL]. [2020-02-01].
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=1
0.1.1.720.9005&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
[39] Thelwall M. Why do papers have many Mendeley
readers but few Scopus-indexed citations and vice
versa?[J]. Journal of Librarianship and Information
Science, 2017, 49(2): 144-151.