Visualization of Co-Readership Patterns from an Online Reference Management System

In this paper, we analyze the adequacy and applicability of readership statistics recorded in social reference management systems for creating knowledge domain visualizations. First, we investigate the distribution of subject areas in user libraries of educational technology researchers on Mendeley. The results show that around 69% of the publications in an average user library can be attributed to a single subject area. Then, we use co-readership patterns to map the field of educational technology. The resulting visualization prototype, based on the most read publications in this field on Mendeley, reveals 13 topic areas of educational technology research. The visualization is a recent representation of the field: 80% of the publications included were published within ten years of data collection. The characteristics of the readers, however, introduce certain biases to the visualization. Knowledge domain visualizations based on readership statistics are therefore multifaceted and timely, but it is important that the characteristics of the underlying sample are made transparent.

[1]  Johan Bollen,et al.  Mapping the structure of science through usage , 2006, Scientometrics.

[2]  Liang-Chu Chen,et al.  Using author co-citation analysis to examine the intellectual structure of e-learning: A MIS perspective , 2011, Scientometrics.

[3]  M. M. Kessler.  Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers , 1963 .

[4]  Donald Ely.  Frameworks of educational technology , 2008, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[5]  Bradley M. Hemminger,et al.  Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web , 2010, First Monday.

[6]  Juan Gorraiz,et al.  Comparison of citation and usage indicators: the case of oncology journals , 2010, Scientometrics.

[7]  J. Kruskal.  Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis , 1964 .

[8]  Henry G. Small,et al.  Visualizing Science by Citation Mapping , 1999, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[9]  Paul Vickers,et al.  A survey of two-dimensional graph layout techniques for information visualisation , 2013, Inf. Vis..

[10]  Johan Bollen,et al.  Usage Impact Factor: the effects of sample characteristics on usage-based impact metrics , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[11]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[12]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Mapping the backbone of science , 2004, Scientometrics.

[13]  Tobias Siebenlist,et al.  Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[14]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Community detection in graphs , 2009, ArXiv.

[15]  Katherine W. McCain,et al.  Visualizing a Discipline: An Author Co-Citation Analysis of Information Science, 1972-1995 , 1998, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[16]  Hinrich Schütze,et al.  Introduction to information retrieval , 2008 .

[17]  Xavier Polanco,et al.  User science indicators in the Web context and co-usage analysis , 2006, Scientometrics.

[18]  Daqing He,et al.  Social reference: aggregating online usage of scientific literature in CiteULike for clustering academic resources , 2011, JCDL '11.

[19]  Michael Granitzer,et al.  On generating large-scale ground truth datasets for the deduplication of bibliographic records , 2012, WIMS '12.

[20]  Johan Bollen,et al.  Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: A comparison of download and citation data , 2005, Inf. Process. Manag..

[21]  Irena V. Marshakova-shaikevich.  System of Document Connections Based on References , 2009 .

[22]  Johan Bollen,et al.  MESUR: usage-based metrics of scholarly impact , 2007, JCDL '07.

[23]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[24]  Sarah C. Goslee,et al.  The ecodist Package for Dissimilarity-based Analysis of Ecological Data , 2007 .

[25]  J. Benichou,et al.  Reading factor: a new bibliometric criterion for managing digital libraries. , 2002, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[26]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[27]  Les Carr,et al.  Trailblazing the literature of hypertext: author co-citation analysis (1989–1998) , 1999, HYPERTEXT '99.

[28]  Katherine W. McCain,et al.  Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview , 1990, Journal of the American Society for Information Science.

[29]  Edward M. Reingold,et al.  Graph drawing by force‐directed placement , 1991, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[30]  Hong Xu,et al.  Journal co-citation analysis of semiconductor literature , 2003, Scientometrics.

[31]  C. Tardy.  The role of English in scientific communication: Lingua franca or Tyrannosaurus rex? , 2004 .

[32]  Stephen S. Murray,et al.  The bibliometric properties of article readership information , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[33]  Laura Czerniewicz.  Educational technology - mapping the terrain with Bernstein as cartographer , 2010, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[34]  M. Amin,et al.  Impact factors: use and abuse. , 2003, Medicina.

[35]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations , 1996, Proceedings 1996 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages.

[36]  Paul Nicholls,et al.  Introduction to informetrics: Quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science , 1991 .

[37]  Jean Tague-Sutcliffe,et al.  An Introduction to Informetrics , 1992, Inf. Process. Manag..

[38]  Daniel T. Larose,et al.  An Introduction to Data Mining , 2005 .

[39]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? , 2010 .

[40]  Xianggui Qu,et al.  Multivariate Data Analysis , 2007, Technometrics.

[41]  Ian Rowlands,et al.  The missing link: journal usage metrics , 2007, Aslib Proc..

[42]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Visualizing knowledge domains , 2005, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[43]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? An analysis of mendeley readers , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[44]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[45]  Henry G. Small,et al.  Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents , 1973, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[46]  Katherine W. McCain,et al.  Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview , 1990, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[47]  Stevan Harnad,et al.  Earlier Web Usage Statistics as Predictors of Later Citation Impact , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[48]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications , 2014, Scientometrics.

[49]  Michael A. Rodriguez,et al.  Clickstream Data Yields High-Resolution Maps of Science , 2009, PloS one.

[50]  Peter Kraker,et al.  Harnessing user library statistics for research evaluation and knowledge domain visualization , 2012, WWW.

[51]  Leo Egghe.  Good properties of similarity measures and their complementarity , 2010 .

[52]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  Beyond citations: Scholars' visibility on the social Web , 2012, ArXiv.

[53]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Mendeley as a Source of Readership by Students and Postdocs? Evaluating Article Usage by Academic Status , 2014 .

[54]  Victor Henning,et al.  Mendeley - A Last.fm For Research? , 2008, 2008 IEEE Fourth International Conference on eScience.

[55]  Yonjoo Cho,et al.  The landscape of educational technology viewed from the ETR&D journal , 2013, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[56]  George Siemens,et al.  Handbook of Emerging Technologies for Learning , 2009 .