The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories
Abstract
Little detailed information is known about who reads research articles and the contexts in which research articles are read. Using data about people who register in M endeley as readers of articles, this article explores different types of users of C linical M edicine, E ngineering and T echnology, S ocial S cience, P hysics, and C hemistry articles inside and outside academia. The majority of readers for all disciplines were PhD students, postgraduates, and postdocs but other types of academics were also represented. In addition, many C linical M edicine articles were read by medical professionals. The highest correlations between citations and M endeley readership counts were found for types of users who often authored academic articles, except for associate professors in some sub‐disciplines. This suggests that M endeley readership can reflect usage similar to traditional citation impact if the data are restricted to readers who are also authors without the delay of impact measured by citation counts. At the same time, M endeley statistics can also reveal the hidden impact of some research articles, such as educational value for nonauthor users inside academia or the impact of research articles on practice for readers outside academia.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services
Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064841 · Cited by 907
Self-citationCostas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23309 · Cited by 711
Information seeking behavior of academic scientists
Hemminger, B. M., Lu, D., Vaughan, K. T. L., & Adams, S. J. (2007) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20686 · Cited by 169
A study of factors that affect the information‐seeking behavior of academic scientists
Niu, X., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21669 · Cited by 129
Cited by
The Academic, Economic and Societal Impacts of Open Access: An Evidence-Based Review
Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, C. H. J. (2016) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.8460.3 · Cited by 560
Applications of Machine Learning in Real-Life Digital Health Interventions: Review of the Literature
Triantafyllidis, A. K., & Tsanas, A. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/12286 · Cited by 243
Early Mendeley readers correlate with later citation counts
Thelwall, M. (2018) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2715-9 · Cited by 113
Self-citationDesrochers, N., Paul-Hus, A., Haustein, S., Costas, R., Mongeon, P., Quan-Haase, A., Bowman, T. D., Pecoskie, J., Tsou, A., & Larivière, V. (2018) · Social Science Information · doi:10.1177/0539018417752089 · Cited by 91
Self-citationSpezi, V. (2016) · New Review of Academic Librarianship · doi:10.1080/13614533.2015.1127831 · Cited by 63
Metadata
- Authors
- Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., & Larivière, V.
- Venue
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-04-29
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1832-1846
- ISSN
- 2330-1635 (ISSN-L)
- 2330-1643
- OpenAlex
- W2169420254
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 30.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/asi.23286
- The paper
- Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015). Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23286
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.