Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.032685287 = product of:
  0.09805586 = sum of:
    0.03904944 = weight(_text_:et in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03904944 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18831778 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040135883 = queryNorm
        0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.059006423 = sum of:
      0.037254993 = weight(_text_:al in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037254993 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18393998 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
            0.040135883 = queryNorm
          0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
      0.021751432 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021751432 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14054902 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.040135883 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0055628037 = product of:
  0.03337682 = sum of:
    0.03337682 = product of:
      0.10013045 = sum of:
        0.10013045 = weight(_text_:author's in 516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10013045 = score(doc=516,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26971927 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040135883 = queryNorm
            0.3712395 = fieldWeight in 516, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=516)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study presents an analysis of the use of bibliographic references by individual scientists in three different research areas. The number and type of references that scientists include in their papers are analyzed, the relationship between the number of references and different impact-based indicators is studied from a multivariable perspective, and the referencing patterns of scientists are related to individual factors such as their age and scientific performance. Our results show inter-area differences in the number, type, and age of references. Within each area, the number of references per document increases with journal impact factor and paper length. Top-performance scientists use in their papers a higher number of references, which are more recent and more frequently covered by the Web of Science. Veteran researchers tend to rely more on older literature and non-Web of Science sources. The longer reference lists of top scientists can be explained by their tendency to publish in high impact factor journals, with stricter reference and reviewing requirements. Long reference lists suggest a broader knowledge on the current literature in a field, which is important to become a top scientist. From the perspective of the "handicap principle theory," the sustained use of a high number of references in an author's oeuvre is a costly behavior that may indicate a serious, comprehensive, and solid research capacity, but that only the best researchers can afford. Boosting papers' citations by artificially increasing the number of references does not seem a feasible strategy.

0.0022657742 = product of:
  0.013594645 = sum of:
    0.013594645 = product of:
      0.02718929 = sum of:
        0.02718929 = weight(_text_:22 in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02718929 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14054902 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040135883 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2759, 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=2759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:02:48

0.0022657742 = product of:
  0.013594645 = sum of:
    0.013594645 = product of:
      0.02718929 = sum of:
        0.02718929 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02718929 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14054902 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040135883 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22