Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Although there is evidence that counting the readers of an article in the social reference site, M endeley, may help to capture its research impact, the extent to which this is true for different scientific fields is unknown. In this study, we compare M endeley readership counts with citations for different social sciences and humanities disciplines. The overall correlation between M endeley readership counts and citations for the social sciences was higher than for the humanities. Low and medium correlations between M endeley bookmarks and citation counts in all the investigated disciplines suggest that these measures reflect different aspects of research impact. M endeley data were also used to discover patterns of information flow between scientific fields. Comparing information flows based on M endeley bookmarking data and cross‐disciplinary citation analysis for the disciplines revealed substantial similarities and some differences. Thus, the evidence from this study suggests that M endeley readership data could be used to help capture knowledge transfer across scientific disciplines, especially for people that read but do not author articles, as well as giving impact evidence at an earlier stage than is possible with citation counts.
Mohammadi et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: