[ 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. |
