Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Haustein, S."
  • × author_ss:"Larivière, V."
  1. Haustein, S.; Sugimoto, C.; Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication : Guest editorial (2015) 0.03 
    0.03441281 = sum of:
  0.009346386 = product of:
    0.037385546 = sum of:
      0.037385546 = weight(_text_:authors in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037385546 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24741474 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05427173 = queryNorm
          0.15110476 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.025066422 = sum of:
    0.0030072108 = weight(_text_:s in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0030072108 = score(doc=3809,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059006266 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05427173 = queryNorm
        0.050964262 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.022059212 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022059212 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19005036 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05427173 = queryNorm
        0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    Abstract
    One of the solutions to help scientists filter the most relevant publications and, thus, to stay current on developments in their fields during the transition from "little science" to "big science", was the introduction of citation indexing as a Wellsian "World Brain" (Garfield, 1964) of scientific information: It is too much to expect a research worker to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the bibliographic descendants of antecedent papers. It would not be excessive to demand that the thorough scholar check all papers that have cited or criticized such papers, if they could be located quickly. The citation index makes this check practicable (Garfield, 1955, p. 108). In retrospective, citation indexing can be perceived as a pre-social web version of crowdsourcing, as it is based on the concept that the community of citing authors outperforms indexers in highlighting cognitive links between papers, particularly on the level of specific ideas and concepts (Garfield, 1983). Over the last 50 years, citation analysis and more generally, bibliometric methods, have developed from information retrieval tools to research evaluation metrics, where they are presumed to make scientific funding more efficient and effective (Moed, 2006). However, the dominance of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has also led to significant goal displacement (Merton, 1957) and the oversimplification of notions of "research productivity" and "scientific quality", creating adverse effects such as salami publishing, honorary authorships, citation cartels, and misuse of indicators (Binswanger, 2015; Cronin and Sugimoto, 2014; Frey and Osterloh, 2006; Haustein and Larivière, 2015; Weingart, 2005).
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.3, S.260-288
  2. Mohammadi, E.; Thelwall, M.; Haustein, S.; Larivière, V.: Who reads research articles? : an altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories (2015) 0.02 
    0.018083319 = sum of:
  0.015577311 = product of:
    0.062309243 = sum of:
      0.062309243 = weight(_text_:authors in 2162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.062309243 = score(doc=2162,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24741474 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05427173 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2162, 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=2162)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0025060088 = product of:
    0.0050120177 = sum of:
      0.0050120177 = weight(_text_:s in 2162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0050120177 = score(doc=2162,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.059006266 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05427173 = queryNorm
          0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 2162, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2162)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Little detailed information is known about who reads research articles and the contexts in which research articles are read. Using data about people who register in Mendeley as readers of articles, this article explores different types of users of Clinical Medicine, Engineering and Technology, Social Science, Physics, and Chemistry articles inside and outside academia. The majority of readers for all disciplines were PhD students, postgraduates, and postdocs but other types of academics were also represented. In addition, many Clinical Medicine articles were read by medical professionals. The highest correlations between citations and Mendeley readership counts were found for types of users who often authored academic articles, except for associate professors in some sub-disciplines. This suggests that Mendeley readership can reflect usage similar to traditional citation impact if the data are restricted to readers who are also authors without the delay of impact measured by citation counts. At the same time, Mendeley statistics can also reveal the hidden impact of some research articles, such as educational value for nonauthor users inside academia or the impact of research articles on practice for readers outside academia.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.9, S.1832-1846
  3. Sugimoto, C.R.; Work, S.; Larivière, V.; Haustein, S.: Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics : A review of the literature (2017) 0.00 
    0.0018415331 = product of:
  0.0036830662 = sum of:
    0.0036830662 = product of:
      0.0073661325 = sum of:
        0.0073661325 = weight(_text_:s in 3781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0073661325 = score(doc=3781,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.059006266 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05427173 = queryNorm
            0.124836445 = fieldWeight in 3781, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.9, S.2037-2062
  4. Haustein, S.; Bowman, T.D.; Holmberg, K.; Tsou, A.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Larivière, V.: Tweets as impact indicators : Examining the implications of automated "bot" accounts on Twitter (2016) 0.00 
    0.0015036054 = product of:
  0.0030072108 = sum of:
    0.0030072108 = product of:
      0.0060144216 = sum of:
        0.0060144216 = weight(_text_:s in 2502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060144216 = score(doc=2502,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.059006266 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05427173 = queryNorm
            0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 2502, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2502)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.1, S.232-238
  5. Haustein, S.; Peters, I.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.; Larivière, V.: Tweeting biomedicine : an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature (2014) 0.00 
    0.0012530044 = product of:
  0.0025060088 = sum of:
    0.0025060088 = product of:
      0.0050120177 = sum of:
        0.0050120177 = weight(_text_:s in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0050120177 = score(doc=1229,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.059006266 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05427173 = queryNorm
            0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.656-669

Authors

Themes