IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/esconf/110467.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic and Business Studies Journals and Readership Information from Mendeley

Author

Listed:
  • Nuredini, Kaltrina
  • Peters, Isabella

Abstract

We present Mendeley-readership information for 30 journals from the German Handelsblatt ranking for Economics and Business Studies from 2010/2012. We use readership data to characterize both fields by journals with over twenty years of publication activity. The analysis focusses on journal output, reader counts, scientific disciplines, academic status as well as geographic origin of readers. The results show that Mendeley provides relatively good coverage of research articles for both disciplines. The majority of readers are PhD students in Business Administration from USA and Germany. Moderate correlations are found between journals’ reader numbers and impact factors. The results suggest that Mendeley readership data on journal level adds useful information to research evaluation and journal rankings and helps economists to publish in the best journal according to the intended target groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Nuredini, Kaltrina & Peters, Isabella, 2015. "Economic and Business Studies Journals and Readership Information from Mendeley," EconStor Conference Papers 110467, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:esconf:110467
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/110467/1/Nuredini_Peters_Economic_Journals_and_Readership_Information_Mendeley.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Seiler, Christian & Wohlrabe, Klaus, 2014. "How robust are journal rankings based on the impact factor? Evidence from the economic sciences," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 904-911.
    2. Stefanie Haustein & Isabella Peters & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Mike Thelwall & Vincent Larivière, 2014. "Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(4), pages 656-669, April.
    3. Berlemann, Michael & Haucap, Justus, 2012. "Which factors drive the decision to boycott and opt out of research rankings? A note," DICE Discussion Papers 72, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    4. Michael Berlemann & Justus Haucap, 2012. "Which Factors Drive the Decision to Boycott and Opt Out of Research Rankings?," CESifo Working Paper Series 3997, CESifo.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kaltrina Nuredini, 2021. "Investigating Altmetric Information For The Top 1000 Journals From Handelsblatt Ranking In Economic And Business Studies," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1315-1343, December.
    2. Dorte Drongstrup & Shafaq Malik & Naif Radi Aljohani & Salem Alelyani & Iqra Safder & Saeed-Ul Hassan, 2020. "Can social media usage of scientific literature predict journal indices of AJG, SNIP and JCR? An altmetric study of economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1541-1558, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Justus Haucap & Johannes Muck, 2015. "What drives the relevance and reputation of economics journals? An update from a survey among economists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 849-877, June.
    2. Dilger, Alexander, 2013. "Soll man das Handelsblatt-Ranking BWL boykottieren?," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 3/2013, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    3. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Yang Zhang, 2023. "The effect of social media knowledge cascade: an analysis of scientific papers diffusion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5169-5195, September.
    4. Isidro F. Aguillo, 2020. "Altmetrics of the Open Access Institutional Repositories: a webometrics approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1181-1192, June.
    5. Yaxue Ma & Zhichao Ba & Yuxiang Zhao & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2021. "Understanding and predicting the dissemination of scientific papers on social media: a two-step simultaneous equation modeling–artificial neural network approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 7051-7085, August.
    6. Yu Liu & Dan Lin & Xiujuan Xu & Shimin Shan & Quan Z. Sheng, 2018. "Multi-views on Nature Index of Chinese academic institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 823-837, March.
    7. Sebastian Vogl & Thomas Scherndl & Anton Kühberger, 2018. "#Psychology: a bibliometric analysis of psychological literature in the online media," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1253-1269, June.
    8. Thomas W. Sanchez, 2021. "Urban Planning Academics: Tweets and Citations," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 146-153.
    9. Beatriz Barros & Ana Fernández-Zubieta & Raul Fidalgo-Merino & Francisco Triguero, 2018. "Scientific knowledge percolation process and social impact: A case study on the biotechnology and microbiology perceptions on Twitter," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 804-814.
    10. Craig R McClain, 2017. "Practices and promises of Facebook for science outreach: Becoming a “Nerd of Trust”," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-9, June.
    11. Constantin Bürgi & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2022. "The influence of Covid-19 on publications in economics: bibliometric evidence from five working paper series," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5175-5189, September.
    12. Klaus Wohlrabe & Constantin Bürgi, 2021. "What is the benefit from publishing a working paper in a journal in terms of citations? Evidence from economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4701-4714, June.
    13. Chieh Liu & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2022. "Exploring the relationships between altmetric counts and citations of papers in different academic fields based on co-occurrence analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4939-4958, August.
    14. Houqiang Yu, 2017. "Context of altmetrics data matters: an investigation of count type and user category," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 267-283, April.
    15. Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh & A. Noorhidawati & A. Abrizah, 2019. "What can Bookmetrix tell us about the impact of Springer Nature’s books," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 521-536, October.
    16. Seiler, Christian & Wohlrabe, Klaus, 2014. "How robust are journal rankings based on the impact factor? Evidence from the economic sciences," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 904-911.
    17. Yurij L. Katchanov & Yulia V. Markova, 2017. "The “space of physics journals”: topological structure and the Journal Impact Factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 313-333, October.
    18. Liwei Zhang & Jue Wang, 2021. "What affects publications’ popularity on Twitter?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9185-9198, November.
    19. Klaus Wohlrabe & Lutz Bornmann, 2022. "Alphabetized co-authorship in economics reconsidered," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2173-2193, May.
    20. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 895-903.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    altmetrics; readership information; journal ranking; economics;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:esconf:110467. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.