This study analyzed 16,799 journal papers and 98,773 conference papers published by IEEE Xplore in 2016 to investigate the relationships among usage counts, Mendeley readership, and citations through descriptive, regression, and mediation analyses. Differences in the relationship among these metrics between journal and conference papers are also studied. Results showed that there is no significant difference between journal and conference papers in the distribution patterns and accumulation rates of the three metrics. However, the correlation coefficients of the interrelationships between the three metrics were lower in conference papers compared to journal papers. Secondly, funding, international collaboration, and open access are positively associated with all three metrics, except for the case of funding on the usage metrics of conference papers. Furthermore, early Mendeley readership is a better predictor of citations than early usage counts and performs better for journal papers. Finally, we reveal that early Mendeley readership partially mediates between early usage counts and citation counts in the journal and conference papers. The main difference is that conference papers rely more on the direct effect of early usage counts on citations. This study contributes to expanding the existing knowledge on the relationships among usage counts, Mendeley readership, and citations in journal and conference papers, providing new insights into the relationship between the three metrics through mediation analysis.

翻译：本研究分析了IEEE Xplore在2016年发表的16,799篇期刊论文与98,773篇会议论文，通过描述性分析、回归分析与中介分析，探讨使用次数、Mendeley读者数与引文之间的关系。同时分析了期刊与会议论文在这些指标关系上的差异。结果表明，期刊与会议论文在三种指标的分布模式与累积速率上无显著差异，但会议论文中三种指标间的相关系数低于期刊论文。其次，资金资助、国际合作与开放获取与所有三种指标呈正相关，但会议论文的使用指标除外。此外，早期Mendeley读者数较早期使用次数更能预测引文，且对期刊论文的预测效果更佳。最后，研究发现早期Mendeley读者数在期刊与会议论文的早期使用次数与引文之间起部分中介作用，主要区别在于会议论文更依赖早期使用次数对引文的直接效应。本研究拓展了期刊与会议论文中使用次数、Mendeley读者数与引文关系的现有认知，通过中介分析为三者关系提供了新见解。