Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating disciplinary differences in the relationships between citations and downloads

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several studies have examined the relationships between citation and download data. Some have also analyzed disciplinary differences in the relationships by comparing a few subject areas or a few journals. To gain a deeper understanding of the disciplinary differences, we carried out a comprehensive study investigating the issue in five disciplines of science, engineering, medicine, social sciences, and humanities. We used a systematic method to select fields and journals ensuring a very broad spectrum and balanced representation of various academic fields. A total of 69 fields and 150 journals were included. We collected citation and download data for these journals from China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database, the largest Chinese academic journal database in the world. We manually filtered out non-research papers such as book reviews and editorials. We analyzed the relationships both at the journal and the paper level. The study found that social sciences and humanities are different from science, engineering, and medicine and that the pattern of differences are consistent across all measures studied. Social sciences and humanities have higher correlations between citations and downloads, higher correlations between downloads per paper and Journal Impact Factor, and higher download-to-citation ratios. The disciplinary differences mean that the accuracy or utility of download data in measuring the impact are higher in social sciences and humanities and that download data in those disciplines reflect or measure a broader impact, much more than the impact in citing authors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bollen, J., & Van de Sompel, H. (2008). Usage impact factor: The effects of sample characteristics on usage-based impact metrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(1), 136–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, T., Harnad, S., & Carr, L. (2006). Earlier web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1060–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CNKI (2016). Introduction to the database: China academic journal network publishing database. Retrieved November 30, 2016, from http://epub.cnki.net/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbprefix=CJFQ.

  • Duy, J., & Vaughan, L. (2003). Usage data for electronic resources: A comparison between locally-collected and vendor-provided statistics. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 29(1), 16–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duy, J., & Vaughan, L. (2006). Can electronic journal usage data replace citation data as a measure of journal use? An empirical examination. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(5), 512–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Gorraiz, J. (2015). Usage metrics versus altmetrics: Confusing terminology? Scientometrics, 102(3), 2161–2164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. & Heeffer, S. (2014). Cross-national preferences ad similarities in downloads and citations of scientific articles: A pilot study. In Proceedings of the science and technology indicators conference, pp. 207–215, Leiden, the Netherlands.

  • Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., & Schlögl, C. (2014). Usage versus citation behaviours in four subject areas. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1077–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2014). Relationship between downloads and citations at journal and paper levels, and the influence of language. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1043–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., Fang, H., & Wang, M. (2011). Correlation between download and citation and download-citation deviation phenomenon for some papers in Chinese medical journals. Serials Review, 37(3), 157–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. (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, 56(10), 1088–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., & Halevi, G. (2015). Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 1988–2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., & Halevi, G. (2016). On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(2), 412–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2007). The missing link: Journal usage metrics. Aslib Proceedings, 59(3), 222–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlögl, C., & Gorraiz, J. (2010). Comparison of citation and usage indicators: The case of oncology journals. Scientometrics, 82(3), 567–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, P. (2007). The feasibility of developing and implementing journal usage factors: A research project sponsored by UKSG. Serials, 20(2), 117–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuai, X., Pepe, A., & Bollen, J. (2012). How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: Article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citations. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e47523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tague, J., & Ajiferuke, I. (1987). The Markov and the mixed Poisson models of library circulation compared. Journal of Documentation, 43(3), 212–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (2016). Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(8), 1962–1972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wan, J. K., Hua, P. H., Rousseau, R., & Sun, X. K. (2010). The journal download immediacy index (DII): Experiences using a Chinese full-text database. Scientometrics, 82(3), 555–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanfang Med Online (2013). Congratulations to the successful renew of agreements for the exclusive collaboration between Wanfang Data and the Chinese Medical Association. Accessed June 10, 2016, from http://med.wanfangdata.com.cn/meeting/hz13/detail.html.

  • Yan, K.-K., & Gerstein, M. (2011). The spread of scientific information: Insights from the web usage statistics in PLoS article-level metrics. PLoS ONE, 6(5), e19917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Information and Media Studies, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 5B7, Canada

    Liwen Vaughan

  2. Consulting Group, Shanghai Library (Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of Shanghai), Shanghai, 200031, China

    Juan Tang & Rongbin Yang

Authors
  1. Liwen Vaughan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juan Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rongbin Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liwen Vaughan.

Appendix: Disciplines and fields in the study

Appendix: Disciplines and fields in the study

Discipline

Field

Number of journals in the study

Science

Mathematics

4

Mechanics

1

Physics

3

Chemistry

4

Astronomy

1

Surveying and mapping

2

Geophysics

2

Atmospheric science

2

Geology

7

Marine science

2

Physical geography

1

Software

1

Engineering

Basic engineering and technology

1

Material science

1

Mining engineering technology

1

Oil and gas industry

2

Metallurgical engineering

2

Metallography and metals technology

2

Mechanical engineering

2

Arms industry and military technology

1

Energy and power

1

Nuclear science and technology

1

Electrical engineering

2

Wireless technology and telecommunications

3

Automation and computer technology

2

Chemical engineering

4

Textile science and technology

1

Civil engineering

3

Hydraulic engineering

1

Medicine

Preventive medicine and hygiene

3

Traditional Chinese medicine and pharmacology

4

Basic medicine

3

Clinical medicine

4

Nursing

1

Internal medicine

3

Surgery

3

Obstetrics/gynecology and pediatrics

1

Oncology

1

Neurology and psychiatry

1

Dermatology and venereology

1

Otorhinolaryngology and ophthalmology

1

Oral medicine

1

Military medicine and special medicine

1

Pharmacy

2

Social sciences

Psychology

1

Sociology

1

Chinese politics

8

World politics

2

General economics

3

Economic theory

1

World economy

1

China’s economy

2

Economic planning and management

1

Accounting, auditing

1

Enterprise economy

1

Agricultural economy

2

Industrial economy

1

Trade economy

1

Logistics

1

Finance

1

Currency/finance, banking/insurance

2

Humanities

Philosophy

2

Religion

1

Culture and museology

2

Language and writing

6

Literature

6

Arts

6

History

4

Archeology

3

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vaughan, L., Tang, J. & Yang, R. Investigating disciplinary differences in the relationships between citations and downloads. Scientometrics 111, 1533–1545 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2308-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2308-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation