IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields


  • Mike Thelwall
  • Paul Wilson


No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Mike Thelwall & Paul Wilson, 2016. "Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(8), pages 1962-1972, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:67:y:2016:i:8:p:1962-1972

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.


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

    Cited by:

    1. Valentina Markusova & Valentin Bogorov & Alexander Libkind, 2018. "Usage metrics vs classical metrics: analysis of Russia’s research output," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 593-603, February.
    2. Liwen Vaughan & Juan Tang & Rongbin Yang, 2017. "Investigating disciplinary differences in the relationships between citations and downloads," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1533-1545, June.
    3. Vîiu, Gabriel-Alexandru, 2018. "The lognormal distribution explains the remarkable pattern documented by characteristic scores and scales in scientometrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 401-415.
    4. Thelwall, Mike, 2017. "Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 128-151.
    5. Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1031-1041.
    6. Paul Kudlow & Matthew Cockerill & Danielle Toccalino & Devin Bissky Dziadyk & Alan Rutledge & Aviv Shachak & Roger S. McIntyre & Arun Ravindran & Gunther Eysenbach, 2017. "Online distribution channel increases article usage on Mendeley: a randomized controlled trial," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1537-1556, September.
    7. António Correia & Hugo Paredes & Benjamim Fonseca, 2018. "Scientometric analysis of scientific publications in CSCW," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(1), pages 31-89, January.
    8. Thelwall, Mike & Nevill, Tamara, 2018. "Could scientists use scores to predict longer term citation counts?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 237-248.
    9. Mike Thelwall, 2017. "Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1721-1731, December.
    10. Rogheyeh Eskrootchi & Nadia Sanee, 2018. "Comparison of medical research performance by thermodynamic and citation analysis methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 2159-2168, December.
    11. Michael Thelwall, 2018. "Can Microsoft Academic be used for citation analysis of preprint archives? The case of the Social Science Research Network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 913-928, May.
    12. Mike Thelwall, 2018. "Early Mendeley readers correlate with later citation counts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1231-1240, June.
    13. Siviwe Bangani, 2018. "The impact of electronic theses and dissertations: a study of the institutional repository of a university in South Africa," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 131-151, April.
    14. Mike Thelwall, 2018. "Differences between journals and years in the proportions of students, researchers and faculty registering Mendeley articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 717-729, May.
    15. Amalia Mas-Bleda & Mike Thelwall, 2016. "Can alternative indicators overcome language biases in citation counts? A comparison of Spanish and UK research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2007-2030, December.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:bla:jinfst:v:67:y:2016:i:8:p:1962-1972. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley Content Delivery). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.