Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 1504.07482

Networks of reader and country status: An analysis of Mendeley reader statistics

Abstract

The number of papers published in journals indexed by the Web of Science core collection is steadily increasing. In recent years, nearly two million new papers were published each year; somewhat more than one million papers when primary research papers are considered only (articles and reviews are the document types where primary research is usually reported or reviewed). However, who reads these papers? More precisely, which groups of researchers from which (self-assigned) scientific disciplines and countries are reading these papers? Is it possible to visualize readership patterns for certain countries, scientific disciplines, or academic status groups? One popular method to answer these questions is a network analysis. In this study, we analyze Mendeley readership data of a set of 1,133,224 articles and 64,960 reviews with publication year 2012 to generate three different kinds of networks: (1) The network based on disciplinary affiliations of Mendeley readers contains four groups: (i) biology, (ii) social science and humanities (including relevant computer science), (iii) bio-medical sciences, and (iv) natural science and engineering. In all four groups, the category with the addition "miscellaneous" prevails. (2) The network of co-readers in terms of professional status shows that a common interest in papers is mainly shared among PhD students, Master's students, and postdocs. (3) The country network focusses on global readership patterns: a group of 53 nations is identified as core to the scientific enterprise, including Russia and China as well as two thirds of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Robin Haunschild, Lutz Bornmann, Loet Leydesdorff. 2015-10-16. Networks of reader and country status: An analysis of Mendeley reader statistics. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.32

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Major Revision, Minor Accountability: LLMs as Reviewers of Published Articles in Top-Tier Journals

With the growth of scientific output, the peer review system is approaching a breaking point: reviewers are increasingly hard to secure, and turnaround times lengthen accordingly. LLM-assisted or LLM-generated peer review has been proposed as a remedy, but how such models would treat manuscripts already published in top-tier journals, the closest thing the current system has to a gold standard of scientific validity, is not known. Here we assembled a corpus of 200 articles, each released under a CC BY 4.0 license and published in 2026, from 20 general-science, life-science, and clinical-medicine journals including Nature, Science, and Cell, and asked four current LLMs (two proprietary, two open-weight) to produce independent peer-review reports of each one under a blinded protocol. Their decisions were overwhelmingly harsh and starkly inconsistent with each other: 605 of 800 reviews (75.6%) recommended major revision or rejection, but the rate at which any single model did so ranged from 17.5% to 100% (p < 0.001), disagreement on manuscripts that had, by construction, already survived real editorial review at the journals in question. When the same manuscripts were doctored with one deliberately planted, field-specific methodological or statistical flaw, detection rates varied from 17.0% to 60.5% across models (p < 0.001). Recommending revision for papers that had already passed editorial review (low specificity) while missing flaws deliberately placed in front of them (low sensitivity), these models produce output that should be read for what it is: an uneven, framing- and model-dependent signal.

cs.DL↗

Journal Basket: Supporting Cross-Disciplinary Literature Searching and Methodological Transparency

Business students beginning a research project must learn how to identify relevant scholarly publications, distinguish disciplinary sources, construct database searches, and report the decisions behind their literature reviews. These tasks can be difficult because journal classification systems and bibliographic databases organize scholarly information differently. This paper introduces Journal Basket, a browser-based tool developed to help business students conduct journal-bounded literature searches and currently available in beta. Journal Basket enables users to construct journal collections from the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List, choose from 42 business discipline presets, entire ABDC fields or the Financial Times FT50 list, apply journal rating thresholds, and generate search expressions for Scopus, Web of Science and Business Source. Users can also inspect and modify journal collections, download journal inventories, and generate methodological descriptions and deterministic identifiers for journal selections. Companion learning resources use explanations, examples and interactive activities to teach review methods, database choice, referencing and the use of contemporary AI tools. Drawing on the journal-basket concept used by Litbaskets.io, I describe the educational motivation, design rationale, technical architecture, and practical workflow of Journal Basket. I distinguish reproducing a journal collection from reproducing an entire database search and discuss the limitations of journal rankings as search boundaries. The paper addresses scholarly information retrieval through a workflow for defining journal boundaries, generating database-specific queries and documenting search decisions.

cs.DL↗

Large Teams Consistently Develop Science

Scientific progress depends on both developing established knowledge and disrupting it to make way for new ideas. Using the disruption index (D), our previous work showed that large teams tend to develop science, while small teams are more likely to disrupt it. Recent work challenges this finding, arguing that D mechanically depends on reference-list length. Using an alternative measure (oneD), it reaches the opposite conclusion: large teams are more disruptive. Combining Nobel Prize case studies, mathematical analysis, and large-scale publication data, we show that oneD misclassifies developmental contributions as disruptive and introduces the very sensitivity to reference-list length that it seeks to eliminate. The original measure, D, however, shows no evidence of the claimed systematic dependence on reference-list length. More fundamentally, even after controlling for reference-list length, larger teams remain more likely to produce strongly developmental work. Our findings reaffirm that large teams consistently develop science and offer new insights into the measurement of scientific disruption.

cs.DL↗