Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ?
arXiv:1410.0569 · doi:10.1515/itit-2014-1048
Abstract
A set of 1.4 million biomedical papers was analyzed with regards to how often articles are mentioned on Twitter or saved by users on Mendeley. While Twitter is a microblogging platform used by a general audience to distribute information, Mendeley is a reference manager targeted at an academic user group to organize scholarly literature. Both platforms are used as sources for so-called altmetrics to measure a new kind of research impact. This analysis shows in how far they differ and compare to traditional citation impact metrics based on a large set of PubMed papers.
References in corpus (1)
Cited by in corpus (9)
- Could scientists use Altmetric.com scores to predict longer term citation counts?
- An extensive analysis of the presence of altmetric data for Web of Science publications across subject fields and research topics
- Preprints as accelerator of scholarly communication: An empirical analysis in Mathematics
- Mendeley readership as a filtering tool to identify highly cited publications
- Microsoft Academic: A multidisciplinary comparison of citation counts with Scopus and Mendeley for 29 journals
- Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated bot accounts on Twitter
- Do 'altmetric mentions' follow Power Laws? Evidence from social media mention data in Altmetric.com
- Usefulness of altmetrics for measuring the broader impact of research: A case study using data from PLOS (altmetrics) and F1000Prime (paper tags)
- Can Google Scholar and Mendeley help to assess the scholarly impacts of dissertations?