Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Abdoli, M."
  • × author_ss:"Kousha, K."
  • × language_ss:"e"
  1. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Why are coauthored academic articles more cited : higher quality or larger audience? (2023) 0.04
    0.03837303 = product of:
      0.07674606 = sum of:
        0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007487943 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
        0.054359984 = weight(_text_:networks in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054359984 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
        0.0148981325 = product of:
          0.029796265 = sum of:
            0.029796265 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.029796265 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043984205 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(3/6)
    
    Abstract
    Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:11:50
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.791-810
  2. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Do altmetric scores reflect article quality? : evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 (2023) 0.03
    0.027987381 = product of:
      0.08396214 = sum of:
        0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007487943 = score(doc=947,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 947, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=947)
        0.0764742 = weight(_text_:united in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0764742 = score(doc=947,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 947, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=947)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    Abstract
    Altmetrics are web-based quantitative impact or attention indicators for academic articles that have been proposed to supplement citation counts. This article reports the first assessment of the extent to which mature altmetrics from Altmetric.com and Mendeley associate with individual article quality scores. It exploits expert norm-referenced peer review scores from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 for 67,030+ journal articles in all fields 2014-2017/2018, split into 34 broadly field-based Units of Assessment (UoAs). Altmetrics correlated more strongly with research quality than previously found, although less strongly than raw and field normalized Scopus citation counts. Surprisingly, field normalizing citation counts can reduce their strength as a quality indicator for articles in a single field. For most UoAs, Mendeley reader counts are the best altmetric (e.g., three Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.5), tweet counts are also a moderate strength indicator in eight UoAs (Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.3), ahead of news (eight correlations above 0.3, but generally weaker), blogs (five correlations above 0.3), and Facebook (three correlations above 0.3) citations, at least in the United Kingdom. In general, altmetrics are the strongest indicators of research quality in the health and physical sciences and weakest in the arts and humanities.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.5, S.582-593
  3. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Abdoli, M.: ¬The role of online videos in research communication : a content analysis of YouTube videos cited in academic publications (2012) 0.00
    0.0012479905 = product of:
      0.007487943 = sum of:
        0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007487943 = score(doc=382,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.9, S.1710-1727
  4. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Abdoli, M.: Goodreads reviews to assess the wider impacts of books (2017) 0.00
    0.0012479905 = product of:
      0.007487943 = sum of:
        0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007487943 = score(doc=3768,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3768, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3768)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.2004-2016
  5. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Abdoli, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: In which fields are citations indicators of research quality? (2023) 0.00
    0.0012479905 = product of:
      0.007487943 = sum of:
        0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 1033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007487943 = score(doc=1033,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1033, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1033)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.8, S.941-953