医学科学高引用文章的门德利读者:它与引用相关吗?

IF 0.6 4区管理学 Q3 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Serials Review Pub Date : 2022-04-03 DOI:10.1080/00987913.2022.2066965

Farshad Baroonzadeh, M. Shekofteh, M. Kazerani, C. Salehnasab

{"title":"医学科学高引用文章的门德利读者:它与引用相关吗?","authors":"Farshad Baroonzadeh, M. Shekofteh, M. Kazerani, C. Salehnasab","doi":"10.1080/00987913.2022.2066965","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The number of Mendeley readers and the number of citations are indicators of a research evaluation. In many cases, they have a significant correlation with each other. However, there is a minimal amount of evidence regarding the correlation between these two variables in highly-cited articles. The present study aimed to investigate the correlation between the number of Mendeley readers and the number of citations in highly-cited medical articles. The research population includes all highly-cited articles in various fields of medicine indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) in 2016. The number of citations was extracted from the WoS, and the number of Mendeley readers was extracted using the webometric analyst. Findings revealed that the most Mendeley readers are related to the field of general and internal medicine with an average of 570.43, and the lowest is dedicated to otorhinolaryngology with an average of 86.2. Also, the highest average citation belongs to general and internal medicine (338.18) and the lowest to nursing (40.84). Pearson correlation coefficient showed that the relationship between the number of Mendeley readers and the number of citations received by all medical articles is positive and significant (p-value <0.001, r = 0.644). In various fields of medicine, except orthopedics, there is a positive and significant relationship between two variables. Evidence suggests that Mendeley data can determine the effectiveness of articles. It seems that more researchers’ use of Mendeley will increase the visibility and readers of the articles and, as a result, will lead to more citations.","PeriodicalId":54165,"journal":{"name":"Serials Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mendeley Readers of Highly-Cited Articles in Medical Sciences: Is It Correlated With Citations?\",\"authors\":\"Farshad Baroonzadeh, M. Shekofteh, M. Kazerani, C. Salehnasab\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00987913.2022.2066965\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The number of Mendeley readers and the number of citations are indicators of a research evaluation. In many cases, they have a significant correlation with each other. However, there is a minimal amount of evidence regarding the correlation between these two variables in highly-cited articles. The present study aimed to investigate the correlation between the number of Mendeley readers and the number of citations in highly-cited medical articles. The research population includes all highly-cited articles in various fields of medicine indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) in 2016. The number of citations was extracted from the WoS, and the number of Mendeley readers was extracted using the webometric analyst. Findings revealed that the most Mendeley readers are related to the field of general and internal medicine with an average of 570.43, and the lowest is dedicated to otorhinolaryngology with an average of 86.2. Also, the highest average citation belongs to general and internal medicine (338.18) and the lowest to nursing (40.84). Pearson correlation coefficient showed that the relationship between the number of Mendeley readers and the number of citations received by all medical articles is positive and significant (p-value <0.001, r = 0.644). In various fields of medicine, except orthopedics, there is a positive and significant relationship between two variables. Evidence suggests that Mendeley data can determine the effectiveness of articles. It seems that more researchers’ use of Mendeley will increase the visibility and readers of the articles and, as a result, will lead to more citations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54165,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Serials Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Serials Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2022.2066965\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Serials Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2022.2066965","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

门德利读者数和被引数是研究评价的指标。在许多情况下，它们之间存在显著的相关性。然而，在高引用的文章中，关于这两个变量之间的相关性的证据很少。本研究旨在探讨门德利读者数量与高被引医学文章被引次数之间的关系。研究人群包括2016年科学网络(Web of Science, WoS)索引中各个医学领域的所有高被引文章。从WoS中提取引文数量，使用webometric analyst提取Mendeley读者数量。调查结果显示，门德利读者最多的是与普通医学和内科相关的领域，平均为570.43，最低的是耳鼻喉科，平均为86.2。平均引用最高的是全科和内科(338.18)，最低的是护理(40.84)。Pearson相关系数显示，Mendeley读者数量与所有医学文章被引用次数呈正相关且显著(p值<0.001,r = 0.644)。在医学的各个领域中，除骨科外，两个变量之间存在显著的正相关关系。有证据表明，门德利数据可以决定文章的有效性。似乎更多的研究人员使用Mendeley将增加文章的可见度和读者，从而导致更多的引用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Mendeley Readers of Highly-Cited Articles in Medical Sciences: Is It Correlated With Citations?

Abstract The number of Mendeley readers and the number of citations are indicators of a research evaluation. In many cases, they have a significant correlation with each other. However, there is a minimal amount of evidence regarding the correlation between these two variables in highly-cited articles. The present study aimed to investigate the correlation between the number of Mendeley readers and the number of citations in highly-cited medical articles. The research population includes all highly-cited articles in various fields of medicine indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) in 2016. The number of citations was extracted from the WoS, and the number of Mendeley readers was extracted using the webometric analyst. Findings revealed that the most Mendeley readers are related to the field of general and internal medicine with an average of 570.43, and the lowest is dedicated to otorhinolaryngology with an average of 86.2. Also, the highest average citation belongs to general and internal medicine (338.18) and the lowest to nursing (40.84). Pearson correlation coefficient showed that the relationship between the number of Mendeley readers and the number of citations received by all medical articles is positive and significant (p-value <0.001, r = 0.644). In various fields of medicine, except orthopedics, there is a positive and significant relationship between two variables. Evidence suggests that Mendeley data can determine the effectiveness of articles. It seems that more researchers’ use of Mendeley will increase the visibility and readers of the articles and, as a result, will lead to more citations.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Serials Review INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-

CiteScore

1.60

自引率

11.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Serials Review, issued quarterly, is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal for the international serials community. Articles focus on serials in the broadest sense of the term and cover all aspects of serials information; regular columns feature interviews, exchanges on controversial topics, book reviews, and conference reports. The journal encompasses practical, theoretical, and visionary ideas for librarians, publishers, vendors, and anyone interested in the changing nature of serials. Serials Review covers all aspects of serials management: format considerations, publishing models, statistical studies, collection analysis, collaborative efforts, reference and access issues, cataloging and acquisitions, people who have shaped the serials community, and topical bibliographic studies.