Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields?Mike A Thelwall2017-10-27articleScientometrics63 citationsgreenNo readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.scientometrics and bibliometrics researchPsychology Research and BibliometricsWeb visibility and informetricsAbstractNo abstract was published for this record.Citations in this libraryStored only when both papers are in the corpus — 63 citations exist upstream.References1968The Matthew Effect in Science2015The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis1968The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered.1974The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations2017THE SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE:: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations2015The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management2014Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network2006Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groupsCited by2018Measuring the social impact of nursing research: An insight into altmetrics2018On the relationships between bibliographic characteristics of scientific documents and citation and Mendeley readership counts: A large-scale analysis of Web of Science publications2018On the relationships between bibliographic characteristics of scientific documents and citation and Mendeley readership counts: A large-scale analysis of Web of Science publications2020The impact of preprints in Library and Information Science: an analysis of citations, usage and social attention indicators2021Measuring the impact of novelty, bibliometric, and academic-network factors on citation count using a neural network2019Altmetrics, alternative indicators for Web of Science Communication studies journals