Traditionally, scholarly impact and visibility have been measured by counting
blications and citations in the scholarly literature. However, increasingly
holars are also visible on the Web, establishing presences in a growing
riety of social ecosystems. But how wide and established is this presence,
d how do measures of social Web impact relate to their more traditional
unterparts? To answer this, we sampled 57 presenters from the 2010 Leiden STI
nference, gathering publication and citations counts as well as data from the
esenters' Web "footprints." We found Web presence widespread and diverse: 84%
scholars had homepages, 70% were on LinkedIn, 23% had public Google Scholar
ofiles, and 16% were on Twitter. For sampled scholars' publications, social
ference manager bookmarks were compared to Scopus and Web of Science
tations; we found that Mendeley covers more than 80% of sampled articles, and
at Mendeley bookmarks are significantly correlated (r=.45) to Scopus citation
unts.

Traditionally, scholarly impact and visibility have been measured by counting
blications and citations in the scholarly literature. However, increasingly
holars are also visible on the Web, establishing presences in a growing
riety of social ecosystems. But how wide and established is this presence,
d how do measures of social Web impact relate to their more traditional
unterparts? To answer this, we sampled 57 presenters from the 2010 Leiden STI
nference, gathering publication and citations counts as well as data from the
esenters' Web "footprints." We found Web presence widespread and diverse: 84%
scholars had homepages, 70% were on LinkedIn, 23% had public Google Scholar
ofiles, and 16% were on Twitter. For sampled scholars' publications, social
ference manager bookmarks were compared to Scopus and Web of Science
tations; we found that Mendeley covers more than 80% of sampled articles, and
at Mendeley bookmarks are significantly correlated (r=.45) to Scopus citation
unts.