Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0067999572 = product of:
  0.027199829 = sum of:
    0.027199829 = product of:
      0.054399658 = sum of:
        0.054399658 = weight(_text_:online in 1614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054399658 = score(doc=1614,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.1226387 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040409453 = queryNorm
            0.4435766 = fieldWeight in 1614, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1614)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Open-access online publication has made available an increasingly wide range of document types for scientometric analysis. In this article, we focus on citations in online presentations, seeking evidence of their value as nontraditional indicators of research impact. For this purpose, we searched for online PowerPoint files mentioning any one of 1,807 ISI-indexed journals in ten science and ten social science disciplines. We also manually classified 1,378 online PowerPoint citations to journals in eight additional science and social science disciplines. The results showed that very few journals were cited frequently enough in online PowerPoint files to make impact assessment worthwhile, with the main exceptions being popular magazines like Scientific American and Harvard Business Review. Surprisingly, however, there was little difference overall in the number of PowerPoint citations to science and to the social sciences, and also in the proportion representing traditional impact (about 60%) and wider impact (about 15%). It seems that the main scientometric value for online presentations may be in tracking the popularization of research, or for comparing the impact of whole journals rather than individual articles.

0.006793508 = product of:
  0.027174031 = sum of:
    0.027174031 = product of:
      0.054348063 = sum of:
        0.054348063 = weight(_text_:publizieren in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054348063 = score(doc=3766,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19938663 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.934158 = idf(docFreq=864, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040409453 = queryNorm
            0.27257627 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.934158 = idf(docFreq=864, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Elektronisches Publizieren

0.006793508 = product of:
  0.027174031 = sum of:
    0.027174031 = product of:
      0.054348063 = sum of:
        0.054348063 = weight(_text_:publizieren in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054348063 = score(doc=3768,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19938663 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.934158 = idf(docFreq=864, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040409453 = queryNorm
            0.27257627 = fieldWeight in 3768, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.934158 = idf(docFreq=864, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3768)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Elektronisches Publizieren

0.004451617 = product of:
  0.017806469 = sum of:
    0.017806469 = product of:
      0.035612937 = sum of:
        0.035612937 = weight(_text_:online in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035612937 = score(doc=382,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1226387 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040409453 = queryNorm
            0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Although there is some evidence that online videos are increasingly used by academics for informal scholarly communication and teaching, the extent to which they are used in published academic research is unknown. This article explores the extent to which YouTube videos are cited in academic publications and whether there are significant broad disciplinary differences in this practice. To investigate, we extracted the URL citations to YouTube videos from academic publications indexed by Scopus. A total of 1,808 Scopus publications cited at least one YouTube video, and there was a steady upward growth in citing online videos within scholarly publications from 2006 to 2011, with YouTube citations being most common within arts and humanities (0.3%) and the social sciences (0.2%). A content analysis of 551 YouTube videos cited by research articles indicated that in science (78%) and in medicine and health sciences (77%), over three fourths of the cited videos had either direct scientific (e.g., laboratory experiments) or scientific-related contents (e.g., academic lectures or education) whereas in the arts and humanities, about 80% of the YouTube videos had art, culture, or history themes, and in the social sciences, about 63% of the videos were related to news, politics, advertisements, and documentaries. This shows both the disciplinary differences and the wide variety of innovative research communication uses found for videos within the different subject areas.

0.004361676 = product of:
  0.017446704 = sum of:
    0.017446704 = product of:
      0.03489341 = sum of:
        0.03489341 = weight(_text_:online in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03489341 = score(doc=2768,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1226387 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040409453 = queryNorm
            0.284522 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Although citation counts are often used to evaluate the research impact of academic publications, they are problematic for books that aim for educational or cultural impact. To fill this gap, this article assesses whether a number of simple metrics derived from Amazon.com reviews of academic books could provide evidence of their impact. Based on a set of 2,739 academic monographs from 2008 and a set of 1,305 best-selling books in 15 Amazon.com academic subject categories, the existence of significant but low or moderate correlations between citations and numbers of reviews, combined with other evidence, suggests that online book reviews tend to reflect the wider popularity of a book rather than its academic impact, although there are substantial disciplinary differences. Metrics based on online reviews are therefore recommended for the evaluation of books that aim at a wide audience inside or outside academia when it is important to capture the broader impacts of educational or cultural activities and when they cannot be manipulated in advance of the evaluation.

0.0036347301 = product of:
  0.0145389205 = sum of:
    0.0145389205 = product of:
      0.029077841 = sum of:
        0.029077841 = weight(_text_:online in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029077841 = score(doc=337,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1226387 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040409453 = queryNorm
            0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We use a new data gathering method, "Web/URL citation," Web/URL and Google Scholar to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, and education) based upon a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 open access (OA) journals published in 2001. A Web/URL citation of an online journal article is a Web mention of its title, URL, or both. For each discipline, except psychology, we found significant correlations between Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI, here: ISI) citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations. Google Scholar citations correlated more highly with ISI citations than did Google Web/URL citations, indicating that the Web/URL method measures a broader type of citation phenomenon. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines, suggesting that Google Scholar is more comprehensive for social sciences and perhaps also when conference articles are valued and published online. We also found large disciplinary differences in the percentage overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citation sources. Finally, although we found many significant trends, there were also numerous exceptions, suggesting that replacing traditional citation sources with the Web or Google Scholar for research impact calculations would be problematic.

0.0036347301 = product of:
  0.0145389205 = sum of:
    0.0145389205 = product of:
      0.029077841 = sum of:
        0.029077841 = weight(_text_:online in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029077841 = score(doc=4920,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1226387 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040409453 = queryNorm
            0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Citation indictors are increasingly used in some subject areas to support peer review in the evaluation of researchers and departments. Nevertheless, traditional journal-based citation indexes may be inadequate for the citation impact assessment of book-based disciplines. This article examines whether online citations from Google Books and Google Scholar can provide alternative sources of citation evidence. To investigate this, we compared the citation counts to 1,000 books submitted to the 2008 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) from Google Books and Google Scholar with Scopus citations across seven book-based disciplines (archaeology; law; politics and international studies; philosophy; sociology; history; and communication, cultural, and media studies). Google Books and Google Scholar citations to books were 1.4 and 3.2 times more common than were Scopus citations, and their medians were more than twice and three times as high as were Scopus median citations, respectively. This large number of citations is evidence that in book-oriented disciplines in the social sciences, arts, and humanities, online book citations may be sufficiently numerous to support peer review for research evaluation, at least in the United Kingdom.

0.002570142 = product of:
  0.010280568 = sum of:
    0.010280568 = product of:
      0.020561136 = sum of:
        0.020561136 = weight(_text_:online in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020561136 = score(doc=3760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1226387 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040409453 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Although news stories target the general public and are sometimes inaccurate, they can serve as sources of real-world information for researchers. This article investigates the extent to which academics exploit journalism using content and citation analyses of online BBC News stories cited by Scopus articles. A total of 27,234 Scopus-indexed publications have cited at least one BBC News story, with a steady annual increase. Citations from the arts and humanities (2.8% of publications in 2015) and social sciences (1.5%) were more likely than citations from medicine (0.1%) and science (<0.1%). Surprisingly, half of the sampled Scopus-cited science and technology (53%) and medicine and health (47%) stories were based on academic research, rather than otherwise unpublished information, suggesting that researchers have chosen a lower-quality secondary source for their citations. Nevertheless, the BBC News stories that were most frequently cited by Scopus, Google Books, and Wikipedia introduced new information from many different topics, including politics, business, economics, statistics, and reports about events. Thus, news stories are mediating real-world knowledge into the academic domain, a potential cause for concern.

0.0023019253 = product of:
  0.009207701 = sum of:
    0.009207701 = product of:
      0.027623104 = sum of:
        0.027623104 = weight(_text_:29 in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027623104 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14214782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040409453 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

16.11.2017 13:29:45

0.0022812178 = product of:
  0.009124871 = sum of:
    0.009124871 = product of:
      0.027374614 = sum of:
        0.027374614 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027374614 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14150701 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040409453 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0022812178 = product of:
  0.009124871 = sum of:
    0.009124871 = product of:
      0.027374614 = sum of:
        0.027374614 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027374614 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14150701 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040409453 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50