Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.030974977 = sum of:
  0.01688514 = product of:
    0.06754056 = sum of:
      0.06754056 = weight(_text_:authors in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06754056 = score(doc=4051,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23704608 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05199731 = queryNorm
          0.28492588 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.014089836 = product of:
    0.028179672 = sum of:
      0.028179672 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028179672 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18208572 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05199731 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.0136136785 = product of:
  0.027227357 = sum of:
    0.027227357 = product of:
      0.054454714 = sum of:
        0.054454714 = weight(_text_:l in 1212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054454714 = score(doc=1212,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20667124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05199731 = queryNorm
            0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 1212, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1212)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.008954698 = product of:
  0.017909396 = sum of:
    0.017909396 = product of:
      0.071637586 = sum of:
        0.071637586 = weight(_text_:authors in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071637586 = score(doc=3700,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23704608 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05199731 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors set forth a general methodology for conducting bibliometric analyses at the micro level. It combines several indicators grouped into three factors or dimensions, which characterize different aspects of scientific performance. Different profiles or classes of scientists are described according to their research performance in each dimension. A series of results based on the findings from the application of this methodology to the study of Spanish National Research Council scientists in Spain in three thematic areas are presented. Special emphasis is made on the identification and description of top scientists from structural and bibliometric perspectives. The effects of age on the productivity and impact of the different classes of scientists are analyzed. The classificatory approach proposed herein may prove a useful tool in support of research assessment at the individual level and for exploring potential determinants of research success.

0.008806148 = product of:
  0.017612295 = sum of:
    0.017612295 = product of:
      0.03522459 = sum of:
        0.03522459 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03522459 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18208572 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05199731 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.007462248 = product of:
  0.014924496 = sum of:
    0.014924496 = product of:
      0.059697986 = sum of:
        0.059697986 = weight(_text_:authors in 363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059697986 = score(doc=363,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23704608 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05199731 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 363, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=363)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Understanding the role of acknowledgments given by researchers in their publications has been a recurrent challenge in the bibliometric field, but relatively unexplored until now. This study presents a general bibliometric analysis on the new "funding acknowledgment" (FA) information available in the Web of Science. All publications covered by the database in 2009 have been analyzed. The presence and length of the FA text, as well as the presence of "peer interactive communication" in the acknowledgments, are related to impact indicators, distribution of papers by fields, countries of the authors, and collaboration level of the papers. It is observed that publications with FAs present a higher impact as compared with publications without them. There are also differences across countries and disciplines in the share of publications with FAs and the acknowledgment of peer interactive communication. China is the country with the highest share of publications acknowledging funding, while the presence of FAs in the humanities and social sciences is very low compared to the more basic disciplines. The presence of peer interactive communication in acknowledgments can be linked to countries that have a strong scientific tradition and are incorporated in scientific networks. Peer interactive communication is also common in the fields of humanities and social sciences and can be linked to lower levels of co-authorship. Observed patterns are explained and topics of future research are proposed.