Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.020314738 = sum of:
  0.010178033 = product of:
    0.0610682 = sum of:
      0.0610682 = weight(_text_:after in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0610682 = score(doc=3809,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2549131 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.1107154 = idf(docFreq=724, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049878165 = queryNorm
          0.23956478 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.1107154 = idf(docFreq=724, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.010136704 = product of:
    0.020273408 = sum of:
      0.020273408 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020273408 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17466484 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049878165 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.014335466 = product of:
  0.028670931 = sum of:
    0.028670931 = product of:
      0.057341862 = sum of:
        0.057341862 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057341862 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17466484 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049878165 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.007196957 = product of:
  0.014393914 = sum of:
    0.014393914 = product of:
      0.08636348 = sum of:
        0.08636348 = weight(_text_:after in 1310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08636348 = score(doc=1310,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2549131 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.1107154 = idf(docFreq=724, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049878165 = queryNorm
            0.33879578 = fieldWeight in 1310, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.1107154 = idf(docFreq=724, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1310)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This work investigates recent claims that citation in a review article provokes a decline in a paper's later citation count; citations being given to the review article instead of the original paper. Using the Science Citation Index Expanded, we looked at the yearly percentages of lifetime citations of papers published in 1990 first cited in review articles in 1992 and 1995 in the field of biomedical research, and found that no significant change occurred after citation in a review article, regardless of the papers' citation activity or specialty. Additional comparison was done for papers from the field of clinical research, and this yielded no meaningful results to support the notion that review articles have any substantial effect on the citation count of the papers they review.

0.0059974636 = product of:
  0.011994927 = sum of:
    0.011994927 = product of:
      0.07196956 = sum of:
        0.07196956 = weight(_text_:after in 2769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07196956 = score(doc=2769,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2549131 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.1107154 = idf(docFreq=724, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049878165 = queryNorm
            0.2823298 = fieldWeight in 2769, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.1107154 = idf(docFreq=724, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2769)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Over the past few years, several major scientific fraud cases have shocked the scientific community. The number of retractions each year has also increased tremendously, especially in the biomedical field, and scientific misconduct accounts for more than half of those retractions. It is assumed that co-authors of retracted papers are affected by their colleagues' misconduct, and the aim of this study is to provide empirical evidence of the effect of retractions in biomedical research on co-authors' research careers. Using data from the Web of Science, we measured the productivity, impact, and collaboration of 1,123 co-authors of 293 retracted articles for a period of 5 years before and after the retraction. We found clear evidence that collaborators do suffer consequences of their colleagues' misconduct and that a retraction for fraud has higher consequences than a retraction for error. Our results also suggest that the extent of these consequences is closely linked with the ranking of co-authors on the retracted paper, being felt most strongly by first authors, followed by the last authors, with the impact is less important for middle authors.