Mendeley readership as a filtering tool to identify highly cited publications
Zohreh Zahedi, Rodrigo Costas, and Paul Wouters

TL;DR
This study demonstrates that Mendeley readership scores are more effective than journal citation scores in identifying highly cited publications across disciplines and can serve as early impact indicators for recent research.
Contribution
It provides large-scale evidence that Mendeley readership scores outperform journal citation scores in predicting highly cited papers and highlights their potential as early impact indicators.
Findings
Readership scores outperform citation scores in identifying highly cited papers.
86.5% of publications have at least one Mendeley reader.
Readership scores are more prevalent for recent publications.
Abstract
This study presents a large scale analysis of the distribution and presence of Mendeley readership scores over time and across disciplines. We study whether Mendeley readership scores (RS) can identify highly cited publications more effectively than journal citation scores (JCS). Web of Science (WoS) publications with DOIs published during the period 2004-2013 and across 5 major scientific fields have been analyzed. The main result of this study shows that readership scores are more effective (in terms of precision/recall values) than journal citation scores to identify highly cited publications across all fields of science and publication years. The findings also show that 86.5% of all the publications are covered by Mendeley and have at least one reader. Also the share of publications with Mendeley readership scores is increasing from 84% in 2004 to 89% in 2009, and decreasing from…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
