The country of authors of 5,9 million Web of Science (WoS) publications with DOI from the years 2012 to 2015 have been compared with the country of Twitter users tweeting these WoS publications in... Show moreThe country of authors of 5,9 million Web of Science (WoS) publications with DOI from the years 2012 to 2015 have been compared with the country of Twitter users tweeting these WoS publications in order to study the main scholarly users of Twitter across 10 different countries. For this purpose, the visibility of country’s publications in the WoS and geographical distribution of Twitter users tweeting WoS publications have been analysed. The aim is to study how do they differ and what are their preference in tweeting their own vs. other country’s publication. The findings show that in general, US and UK with the highest proportion of outputs in the WoS, are among the main users of Twitter as well. Moreover, except for US, users tweet publications affiliated to other country more than those from their own country. Also, similar to WoS, it seems that altmetric providers are not free of international biases in their coverage and collection of metrics. Finally, various possible reasons on why publications from some countries attract more Twitter users than others have been discussed. Show less
The main focus of this paper is to investigate the impact of publications read (saved) by the different users in Mendeley in order to explore the extent to which their readership counts correlate... Show moreThe main focus of this paper is to investigate the impact of publications read (saved) by the different users in Mendeley in order to explore the extent to which their readership counts correlate with their citation indicators. The potential of filtering highly cited papers by Mendeley readerships and its different users have been also explored. For the analysis of the users, we have considered the information of the top three Mendeley ‘users’ reported by the Mendeley. Our results show that publications with Mendeley readerships tend to have higher citation and journal citation scores than publications without readerships. ‘Biomedical & health sciences’ and ‘Mathematics and computer science’ are the fields with respectively the most and the least readership activity in Mendeley. PhD students have the highest density of readerships per publication and Lecturers and Librarians have the lowest across all the different fields. Our precision-recall analysis indicates that in general, for publications with at least one reader in Mendeley, the capacity of readerships of filtering highly cited publications is better than (or at least as good as) Journal Citation Scores. We discuss the important limitation of Mendeley of only reporting the top three readers and not all of them in the potential development of indicators based on Mendeley and its users. Show less
