Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012470221 = product of:
  0.03741066 = sum of:
    0.03741066 = product of:
      0.11223198 = sum of:
        0.11223198 = weight(_text_:lists in 1033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11223198 = score(doc=1033,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26485372 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4240103 = idf(docFreq=529, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048829872 = queryNorm
            0.42375082 = fieldWeight in 1033, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4240103 = idf(docFreq=529, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1033)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Citation counts are widely used as indicators of research quality to support or replace human peer review and for lists of top cited papers, researchers, and institutions. Nevertheless, the relationship between citations and research quality is poorly evidenced. We report the first large-scale science-wide academic evaluation of the relationship between research quality and citations (field normalized citation counts), correlating them for 87,739 journal articles in 34 field-based UK Units of Assessment (UoA). The two correlate positively in all academic fields, from very weak (0.1) to strong (0.5), reflecting broadly linear relationships in all fields. We give the first evidence that the correlations are positive even across the arts and humanities. The patterns are similar for the field classification schemes of Scopus and Dimensions.ai, although varying for some individual subjects and therefore more uncertain for these. We also show for the first time that no field has a citation threshold beyond which all articles are excellent quality, so lists of top cited articles are not pure collections of excellence, and neither is any top citation percentile indicator. Thus, while appropriately field normalized citations associate positively with research quality in all fields, they never perfectly reflect it, even at high values.

0.0037087929 = product of:
  0.011126379 = sum of:
    0.011126379 = product of:
      0.033379134 = sum of:
        0.033379134 = weight(_text_:29 in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033379134 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17176822 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048829872 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

16.11.2017 13:29:45

0.0036754298 = product of:
  0.011026289 = sum of:
    0.011026289 = product of:
      0.033078868 = sum of:
        0.033078868 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033078868 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1709939 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048829872 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0036754298 = product of:
  0.011026289 = sum of:
    0.011026289 = product of:
      0.033078868 = sum of:
        0.033078868 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033078868 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1709939 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048829872 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50