Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008867388 = product of:
  0.026602162 = sum of:
    0.026602162 = product of:
      0.053204324 = sum of:
        0.053204324 = weight(_text_:2009 in 363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053204324 = score(doc=363,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20749448 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6415744 = idf(docFreq=1158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04470347 = queryNorm
            0.2564132 = fieldWeight in 363, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6415744 = idf(docFreq=1158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=363)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.008867388 = product of:
  0.026602162 = sum of:
    0.026602162 = product of:
      0.053204324 = sum of:
        0.053204324 = weight(_text_:2009 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053204324 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20749448 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6415744 = idf(docFreq=1158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04470347 = queryNorm
            0.2564132 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6415744 = idf(docFreq=1158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study presents a large-scale analysis of the distribution and presence of Mendeley readership scores over time and across disciplines. We study whether Mendeley readership scores (RS) can identify highly cited publications more effectively than journal citation scores (JCS). Web of Science (WoS) publications with digital object identifiers (DOIs) published during the period 2004-2013 and across five major scientific fields were analyzed. The main result of this study shows that RS are more effective (in terms of precision/recall values) than JCS to identify highly cited publications across all fields of science and publication years. The findings also show that 86.5% of all the publications are covered by Mendeley and have at least one reader. Also, the share of publications with Mendeley RS is increasing from 84% in 2004 to 89% in 2009, and decreasing from 88% in 2010 to 82% in 2013. However, it is noted that publications from 2010 onwards exhibit on average a higher density of readership versus citation scores. This indicates that compared to citation scores, RS are more prevalent for recent publications and hence they could work as an early indicator of research impact. These findings highlight the potential and value of Mendeley as a tool for scientometric purposes and particularly as a relevant tool to identify highly cited publications.

0.0050472524 = product of:
  0.015141757 = sum of:
    0.015141757 = product of:
      0.030283514 = sum of:
        0.030283514 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030283514 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15654393 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04470347 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.004037802 = product of:
  0.012113405 = sum of:
    0.012113405 = product of:
      0.02422681 = sum of:
        0.02422681 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02422681 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15654393 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04470347 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22