IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v117y2018i1d10.1007_s11192-018-2882-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An h index for Mendeley: comparison of citation-based h indices and a readership-based hmen index for 29 authors

Author

Listed:
  • Johanna M. Askeridis

    (Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf)

Abstract

As Mendeley readership counts seems to be the most closely related to citation counts in comparison to other altmetrics, this paper proposes the hmen index as a variant of the citation-based h index which takes into account Mendeley readership counts. For 29 authors—11 of which are considered as young and 18 as established authors—the h values for Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) and the hmen value for Mendeley have been derived. In order to find out about the reliability of the hmen index as an indicator to assess scholarly impact, a correlation analysis between the indices has been conducted. Furthermore, the index values were divided by the scientific ages of the authors in order to obtain time-oriented h and hmen values which make a comparison of authors with different scientific ages possible. The hmen index was found to have very strong positive and highly significant correlations of around 0.95 with each of the h indices. Time-oriented values showed the faster reception of scientific work via Mendeley in comparison to citation counts and revealed exceptional authors who were found to have rather young scientific ages.

Suggested Citation

  • Johanna M. Askeridis, 2018. "An h index for Mendeley: comparison of citation-based h indices and a readership-based hmen index for 29 authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 615-624, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:117:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2882-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2882-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-018-2882-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-018-2882-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christine Meschede & Tobias Siebenlist, 2018. "Cross-metric compatability and inconsistencies of altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 283-297, April.
    2. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Judit Dobránszki, 2018. "Rejoinder to “Multiple versions of the h-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1131-1137, May.
    3. Stefanie Haustein & Isabella Peters & Judit Bar-Ilan & Jason Priem & Hadas Shema & Jens Terliesner, 2014. "Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1145-1163, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Isabelle Dorsch & Johanna M. Askeridis & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2018. "Truebounded, Overbounded, or Underbounded? Scientists’ Personal Publication Lists versus Lists Generated through Bibliographic Information Services," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, February.
    6. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Judit Dobránszki, 2018. "Multiple versions of the h-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1107-1113, May.
    7. Kuku Joseph Aduku & Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2017. "Do Mendeley reader counts reflect the scholarly impact of conference papers? An investigation of computer science and engineering," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 573-581, July.
    8. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(8), pages 1627-1638, August.
    9. Rodrigo Costas & Zohreh Zahedi & Paul Wouters, 2015. "Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 2003-2019, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Maryam Moshtagh & Tahereh Jowkar & Maryam Yaghtin & Hajar Sotudeh, 2023. "The moderating effect of altmetrics on the correlations between single and multi-faceted university ranking systems: the case of THE and QS vs. Nature Index and Leiden," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 761-781, January.
    3. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2449-2469, December.
    4. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Liwei Zhang & Jue Wang, 2021. "What affects publications’ popularity on Twitter?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9185-9198, November.
    8. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Author-level metrics in the new academic profile platforms: The online behaviour of the Bibliometrics community," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 494-509.
    9. 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.
    10. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin & Adams, Jonathan, 2019. "Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF)," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 325-340.
    11. 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.
    12. Saeed-Ul Hassan & Mubashir Imran & Uzair Gillani & Naif Radi Aljohani & Timothy D. Bowman & Fereshteh Didegah, 2017. "Measuring social media activity of scientific literature: an exhaustive comparison of scopus and novel altmetrics big data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1037-1057, November.
    13. Mojisola Erdt & Aarthy Nagarajan & Sei-Ching Joanna Sin & Yin-Leng Theng, 2016. "Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1117-1166, November.
    14. Zhiqi Wang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Yue Chen, 2020. "The impact of preprints in Library and Information Science: an analysis of citations, usage and social attention indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1403-1423, November.
    15. Mousumi Karmakar & Sumit Kumar Banshal & Vivek Kumar Singh, 2021. "A large-scale comparison of coverage and mentions captured by the two altmetric aggregators: Altmetric.com and PlumX," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4465-4489, May.
    16. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha & Mahshid Abdoli & Emma Stuart & Meiko Makita & Paul Wilson & Jonathan Levitt, 2023. "Do altmetric scores reflect article quality? Evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(5), pages 582-593, May.
    17. Saeed-Ul Hassan & Sehrish Iqbal & Naif R. Aljohani & Salem Alelyani & Alesia Zuccala, 2020. "Introducing the ‘alt-index’ for measuring the social visibility of scientific research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1407-1419, June.
    18. Kuku Joseph Aduku & Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2017. "Do Mendeley reader counts reflect the scholarly impact of conference papers? An investigation of computer science and engineering," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 573-581, July.
    19. Lutz Bornmann, 2015. "Alternative metrics in scientometrics: a meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 1123-1144, June.
    20. Metwaly Ali Mohamed Eldakar, 2019. "Who reads international Egyptian academic articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley readership categories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 105-135, October.

    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:spr:scient:v:117:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2882-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.