Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Kousha, K."
  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.03 
    0.033631988 = product of:
  0.067263976 = sum of:
    0.067263976 = sum of:
      0.031993415 = weight(_text_:society in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031993415 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17364666 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05206517 = queryNorm
          0.18424435 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.03527056 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03527056 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18232337 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05206517 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.11, S.1631-1644
  2. 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) 0.01 
    0.00881764 = product of:
  0.01763528 = sum of:
    0.01763528 = product of:
      0.03527056 = sum of:
        0.03527056 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03527056 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18232337 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206517 = 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(1/2)
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:11:50
  3. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations : a multi-discipline exploratory analysis (2007) 0.01 
    0.007998354 = product of:
  0.015996708 = sum of:
    0.015996708 = product of:
      0.031993415 = sum of:
        0.031993415 = weight(_text_:society in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031993415 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17364666 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206517 = queryNorm
            0.18424435 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.7, S.1055-1065
  4. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Online presentations as a source of scientific impact? : an analysis of PowerPoint files citing academic journals (2008) 0.01 
    0.007998354 = product of:
  0.015996708 = sum of:
    0.015996708 = product of:
      0.031993415 = sum of:
        0.031993415 = weight(_text_:society in 1614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031993415 = score(doc=1614,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17364666 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206517 = queryNorm
            0.18424435 = fieldWeight in 1614, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1614)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.5, S.805-815
  5. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google book search : citation analysis for social science and the humanities (2009) 0.01 
    0.007998354 = product of:
  0.015996708 = sum of:
    0.015996708 = product of:
      0.031993415 = sum of:
        0.031993415 = weight(_text_:society in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031993415 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17364666 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206517 = queryNorm
            0.18424435 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1537-1549
  6. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Rezaie, S.: Assessing the citation impact of books : the role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus (2011) 0.01 
    0.007998354 = product of:
  0.015996708 = sum of:
    0.015996708 = product of:
      0.031993415 = sum of:
        0.031993415 = weight(_text_:society in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031993415 = score(doc=4920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17364666 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206517 = queryNorm
            0.18424435 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2147-2164
  7. 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) 0.01 
    0.007998354 = product of:
  0.015996708 = sum of:
    0.015996708 = product of:
      0.031993415 = sum of:
        0.031993415 = weight(_text_:society in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031993415 = score(doc=382,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17364666 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206517 = queryNorm
            0.18424435 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.9, S.1710-1727
  8. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Are wikipedia citations important evidence of the impact of scholarly articles and books? (2017) 0.01 
    0.007998354 = product of:
  0.015996708 = sum of:
    0.015996708 = product of:
      0.031993415 = sum of:
        0.031993415 = weight(_text_:society in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031993415 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17364666 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206517 = queryNorm
            0.18424435 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Individual academics and research evaluators often need to assess the value of published research. Although citation counts are a recognized indicator of scholarly impact, alternative data is needed to provide evidence of other types of impact, including within education and wider society. Wikipedia is a logical choice for both of these because the role of a general encyclopaedia is to be an understandable repository of facts about a diverse array of topics and hence it may cite research to support its claims. To test whether Wikipedia could provide new evidence about the impact of scholarly research, this article counted citations to 302,328 articles and 18,735 monographs in English indexed by Scopus in the period 2005 to 2012. The results show that citations from Wikipedia to articles are too rare for most research evaluation purposes, with only 5% of articles being cited in all fields. In contrast, a third of monographs have at least one citation from Wikipedia, with the most in the arts and humanities. Hence, Wikipedia citations can provide extra impact evidence for academic monographs. Nevertheless, the results may be relatively easily manipulated and so Wikipedia is not recommended for evaluations affecting stakeholder interests.

Authors

Years