Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012243311 = product of:
  0.024486622 = sum of:
    0.024486622 = product of:
      0.048973244 = sum of:
        0.048973244 = weight(_text_:work in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048973244 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 1813, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1813)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

ResearchGate is a social network site for academics to create their own profiles, list their publications, and interact with each other. Like Academia.edu, it provides a new way for scholars to disseminate their work and hence potentially changes the dynamics of informal scholarly communication. This article assesses whether ResearchGate usage and publication data broadly reflect existing academic hierarchies and whether individual countries are set to benefit or lose out from the site. The results show that rankings based on ResearchGate statistics correlate moderately well with other rankings of academic institutions, suggesting that ResearchGate use broadly reflects the traditional distribution of academic capital. Moreover, while Brazil, India, and some other countries seem to be disproportionately taking advantage of ResearchGate, academics in China, South Korea, and Russia may be missing opportunities to use ResearchGate to maximize the academic impact of their publications.

0.010202759 = product of:
  0.020405518 = sum of:
    0.020405518 = product of:
      0.040811036 = sum of:
        0.040811036 = weight(_text_:work in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040811036 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%-5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.

0.010202759 = product of:
  0.020405518 = sum of:
    0.020405518 = product of:
      0.040811036 = sum of:
        0.040811036 = weight(_text_:work in 3349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040811036 = score(doc=3349,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 3349, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3349)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The large multidisciplinary academic social website ResearchGate aims to help academics to connect with each other and to publicize their work. Despite its popularity, little is known about the age and discipline of the articles uploaded and viewed in the site and whether publication statistics from the site could be useful impact indicators. In response, this article assesses samples of ResearchGate articles uploaded at specific dates, comparing their views in the site to their Mendeley readers and Scopus-indexed citations. This analysis shows that ResearchGate is dominated by recent articles, which attract about three times as many views as older articles. ResearchGate has uneven coverage of scholarship, with the arts and humanities, health professions, and decision sciences poorly represented and some fields receiving twice as many views per article as others. View counts for uploaded articles have low to moderate positive correlations with both Scopus citations and Mendeley readers, which is consistent with them tending to reflect a wider audience than Scopus-publishing scholars. Hence, for articles uploaded to the site, view counts may give a genuinely new audience indicator.

0.009287165 = product of:
  0.01857433 = sum of:
    0.01857433 = product of:
      0.03714866 = sum of:
        0.03714866 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03714866 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = 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)
  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.

0.009287165 = product of:
  0.01857433 = sum of:
    0.01857433 = product of:
      0.03714866 = sum of:
        0.03714866 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03714866 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.009287165 = product of:
  0.01857433 = sum of:
    0.01857433 = product of:
      0.03714866 = sum of:
        0.03714866 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03714866 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = 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