Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln


Date of this Version



  • Adams, J. (2005). Early citation counts correlate with accumulated impact. Scientometrics, 63(3), 567-581.
  • Abramo, G., Cicero, T., &D’Angelo, C. A. (2012). A sensitivity analysis of research institutions’ productivity rankings to the time of citation observation. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 298-306.
  • Alhoori, H., &Furuta, R. (2011). Understanding the dynamic scholarly research needs and behavior as applied to social reference management. In International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (pp. 169-178). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  • Beel, J., Gipp, B., Langer, S., &Breitinger, C. (2016). Research-paper recommender systems: a literature survey. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 17(4), 305-338.
  • Cronin, B., Sugimoto, C. R. (ed.), (2014). Beyond bibliometrics: harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. Cambridge/ London: MIT Press.
  • Gunn, W. (2013). Social Signals Reflect Academic Impact: What it Means When a Scholar adda Paper to Mendeley. Information Standards Quarterly. 25(2): 33-39.
  • Galloway, L. M., Pease, J. L., &Rauh, A. E. (2013). Introduction to altmetrics for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) Librarians. Science& Technology Libraries, 32(4), 335–345, doi: 10.1080/0194262X. 2013.829762.
  • Haustein, S., &Larivière, V. (2014). A multidimensional analysis of Aslib proceedings – using everything but the impact factor. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(4), 358–380.
  • Haustein, S., &Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 446-457.
  • Henning, V., &Reichelt, J. (2008). Mendeley—A for research? In G. Fox (Ed.), IEEE Fourth International Conference on eScience(eScience’08) (pp. 327–328). Menlo Park, CA: IEEE.
  • Li, X., Thelwall, M., &Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement, Scientometrics, 91(2), 461-471.
  • Levitt, J. M., &Thelwall, M. (2011). A combined bibliometric indicator to predict article impact. Information Processing & Management, 47(2), 300-308.
  • Maleki, A. (2015). Mendeley readership impact of academic articles of Iran. In Proceedings of the Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI2015). Boğaziçi University Printhouse: Istanbul, Turkey (pp. 109-110).
  • Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., &Larivière, V. (in press). Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
  • Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M. &Kousha, K. (in press). Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
  • Mohammadi, E. &Thelwall, M. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(8), 1627-1638.
  • Maflahi, N. &Thelwall, M. (in press). When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
  • Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M. &Kousha, K. (2016). Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(5), 1198-1209. doi:10.1002/asi.23477.
  • Mas‐Bleda, A., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K. and Aguillo, I.F. (2014) .Do highly Cited researchers successfully use the social web? Scientometrics, Vol101 (1): 337‐356.
  • MacRoberts, M. H., &MacRoberts, B. R. (1989). Problems of citation analysis: A critical review.Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(5), 342–349.
  • Ortega, J. L. (2015). Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites.Online Information Review, 39(4): 520 ‐ 536.
  • Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P. &Neylon, C. (2010). Alt-metrics: A manifesto. Available from
  • Priem, J., Piwowar, H., &Hemminger, B. (2012b). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explorescholarly impact. Retrieved from
  • Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., &Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media toexplore scholarly impact. Arxiv preprint arXiv: 1203.4745.
  • Roemer, R. C., &Borchardt, R. (2012). From bibliometrics to altmetrics: A changing scholarly landscape. College & Research Library News, 39(November), 8–9.
  • Sud, P. &Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131-1143.
  • Sud, P. &Thelwall, M. (in press). Not all international collaboration is beneficial: The Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
  • Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Lariviere, V. & Sugimoto, C. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other candidates. PLOS ONE, 8(5),e64841. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064841.
  • Wang, J. (2013). Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics, 94(3), 851-872.
  • Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., &Wouters, P. (2014). Assessing the Impact of Publications Saved by Mendeley Users: Is There Any Different Pattern Among Users? Proceedings of the IATUL Conferences, 1–13.
  • Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., &Wouters, P. (2017). Mendeley readership as a filtering tool to identify highly cited publications. Jasist, 2017, 1–18.
  • Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., &Wouters, P. (2014). How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1491-1513.
  • Zaugg, H., West, R. E., Tateishi, I., & Randall, D. L. (2011). Mendeley: Creating communities of scholarly inquiry through research collaboration. Tech Trends, 55(1), 32-36.


The present study was carried out to find out the association between Mendeley readership count and citation pattern for scholarly articles. This study was carried out with the most prolific authors of 2014 from the four subject domain “Clinical medicine, Microbiology, Molecular Biology and Neuroscience” and around 4886 papers was identified and studied their Mendeley readership count and citation count. It was found that the articles of the most prolific authors in the above subject have a strong positive correlation between Mendeley readership count and citation; ρ value is .715**. The linear relationship for individual subjects was between .626** to .789**, significant at 0.01 level.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.