IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v101y2014i2d10.1007_s11192-014-1271-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Usage versus citation behaviours in four subject areas

Author

Listed:
  • Juan Gorraiz

    (University of Vienna)

  • Christian Gumpenberger

    (University of Vienna)

  • Christian Schlögl

    (University of Graz)

Abstract

This study puts an emphasis on the disciplinary differences observed for the behaviour of citations and downloads. This was exemplified by studying citations over the last 10 years in four selected fields, namely, arts and humanities, computer science, economics, econometrics, and finance, and oncology. Differences in obsolescence characteristics were studied using synchronic as well as diachronic counts. Furthermore, differences between document types were taken into consideration and correlations between journal impact and journal usage measures were calculated. The number of downloads per document remains almost constant for all four observed areas within the last four years, varying from approximately 180 (oncology) to 300 (economics). The percentage of downloaded documents is higher than 90 % for all areas. The number of citations per document ranges from one (arts and humanities) to three (oncology). The percentages of cited documents range from 40 to 56 %. According to our study, 50–140 downloads correspond to one citation. A differentiation according to document type reveals further download- and citation-specific characteristics for the observed subject areas. This study points to the fact that citations can only measure the impact in the ‘publish or perish’ community; however, this approach is neither applicable to the whole scientific community nor to society in general. Downloads may not be a perfect proxy to estimate the overall usage. Nevertheless, they measure at least the intention to use the downloaded material, which is invaluable information in order to better understand publication and communication processes. Usage metrics should consider the unique nature of downloads and ought to reflect their intrinsic differences from citations.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan Gorraiz & Christian Gumpenberger & Christian Schlögl, 2014. "Usage versus citation behaviours in four subject areas," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1077-1095, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:101:y:2014:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1271-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1271-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-014-1271-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-014-1271-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jin-kun Wan & Ping-huan Hua & Ronald Rousseau & Xiu-kun Sun, 2010. "The journal download immediacy index (DII): experiences using a Chinese full-text database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(3), pages 555-566, March.
    2. Michael J. Kurtz & Guenther Eichhorn & Alberto Accomazzi & Carolyn Grant & Markus Demleitner & Stephen S. Murray & Nathalie Martimbeau & Barbara Elwell, 2005. "The bibliometric properties of article readership information," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 56(2), pages 111-128, January.
    3. Henk F. Moed, 2005. "Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 56(10), pages 1088-1097, August.
    4. Haustein, Stefanie & Siebenlist, Tobias, 2011. "Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 446-457.
    5. Christian Schloegl & Juan Gorraiz, 2011. "Global usage versus global citation metrics: The case of pharmacology journals," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(1), pages 161-170, January.
    6. Johan Bollen & Herbert Van de Sompel, 2008. "Usage impact factor: The effects of sample characteristics on usage‐based impact metrics," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(1), pages 136-149, January.
    7. Christian Schloegl & Juan Gorraiz, 2010. "Comparison of citation and usage indicators: the case of oncology journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(3), pages 567-580, March.
    8. Christian Schloegl & Juan Gorraiz, 2011. "Global usage versus global citation metrics: The case of pharmacology journals," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(1), pages 161-170, January.
    9. John D. McDonald, 2007. "Understanding journal usage: A statistical analysis of citation and use," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(1), pages 39-50, January.
    10. Tim Brody & Stevan Harnad & Leslie Carr, 2006. "Earlier Web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(8), pages 1060-1072, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christian Schlögl & Juan Gorraiz & Christian Gumpenberger & Kris Jack & Peter Kraker, 2014. "Comparison of downloads, citations and readership data for two information systems journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1113-1128, November.
    2. Bikun Chen, 2018. "Usage pattern comparison of the same scholarly articles between Web of Science (WoS) and Springer," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 519-537, April.
    3. Xianwen Wang & Zhichao Fang & Xiaoling Sun, 2016. "Usage patterns of scholarly articles on Web of Science: a study on Web of Science usage count," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 917-926, November.
    4. Wolfgang Glänzel & Juan Gorraiz, 2015. "Usage metrics versus altmetrics: confusing terminology?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2161-2164, March.
    5. Yufeng Duan & Zequan Xiong, 2017. "Download patterns of journal papers and their influencing factors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1761-1775, September.
    6. Zhichao Fang & Rodrigo Costas, 2020. "Studying the accumulation velocity of altmetric data tracked by Altmetric.com," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1077-1101, May.
    7. Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2014. "Relationship between downloads and citations at journal and paper levels, and the influence of language," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1043-1065, November.
    8. Christian Schloegl & Juan Gorraiz, 2010. "Comparison of citation and usage indicators: the case of oncology journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(3), pages 567-580, March.
    9. Anthony Breitzman, 2021. "The relationship between web usage and citation statistics for electronics and information technology articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2085-2105, March.
    10. Liwen Vaughan & Juan Tang & Rongbin Yang, 2017. "Investigating disciplinary differences in the relationships between citations and downloads," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1533-1545, June.
    11. Barbara McGillivray & Mathias Astell, 2019. "The relationship between usage and citations in an open access mega-journal," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 817-838, November.
    12. Muhammad Salman Khan & Muhammad Younas, 2017. "Analyzing readers behavior in downloading articles from IEEE digital library: a study of two selected journals in the field of education," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1523-1537, March.
    13. Mike Thelwall, 2012. "Journal impact evaluation: a webometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 429-441, August.
    14. Kraker, Peter & Schlögl, Christian & Jack, Kris & Lindstaedt, Stefanie, 2015. "Visualization of co-readership patterns from an online reference management system," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 169-182.
    15. Khan, Abdullah & Rizvi, Syed Aun R. & Ali, Mohsin & Haroon, Omair, 2021. "A survey of Islamic finance research – Influences and influencers," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    16. Wencan Tian & Yongzhen Wang & Zhigang Hu & Ruonan Cai & Guangyao Zhang & Xianwen Wang, 2024. "Does Granger causality exist between article usage and publication counts? A topic-level time-series evidence from IEEE Xplore," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(6), pages 3285-3302, June.
    17. Ajiferuke, Isola & Famoye, Felix, 2015. "Modelling count response variables in informetric studies: Comparison among count, linear, and lognormal regression models," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 499-513.
    18. Mike Thelwall, 2018. "Early Mendeley readers correlate with later citation counts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1231-1240, June.
    19. Saeideh Ebrahimy & Jafar Mehrad & Fatemeh Setareh & Massoud Hosseinchari, 2016. "Path analysis of the relationship between visibility and citation: the mediating roles of save, discussion, and recommendation metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1497-1510, December.
    20. Wood-Doughty, Alex & Bergstrom, Ted & Steigerwald, Douglas, 2017. "Do download reports reliably measure journal usage? Trusting the fox to count your Hens?," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt1f221007, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:101:y:2014:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1271-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.