Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.026153887 = product of:
  0.065384716 = sum of:
    0.022633385 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022633385 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.1290374 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.04275133 = sum of:
      0.024438271 = weight(_text_:searching in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024438271 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18226127 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045055166 = queryNorm
          0.13408373 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.01831306 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01831306 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045055166 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

One of the solutions to help scientists filter the most relevant publications and, thus, to stay current on developments in their fields during the transition from "little science" to "big science", was the introduction of citation indexing as a Wellsian "World Brain" (Garfield, 1964) of scientific information: It is too much to expect a research worker to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the bibliographic descendants of antecedent papers. It would not be excessive to demand that the thorough scholar check all papers that have cited or criticized such papers, if they could be located quickly. The citation index makes this check practicable (Garfield, 1955, p. 108). In retrospective, citation indexing can be perceived as a pre-social web version of crowdsourcing, as it is based on the concept that the community of citing authors outperforms indexers in highlighting cognitive links between papers, particularly on the level of specific ideas and concepts (Garfield, 1983). Over the last 50 years, citation analysis and more generally, bibliometric methods, have developed from information retrieval tools to research evaluation metrics, where they are presumed to make scientific funding more efficient and effective (Moed, 2006). However, the dominance of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has also led to significant goal displacement (Merton, 1957) and the oversimplification of notions of "research productivity" and "scientific quality", creating adverse effects such as salami publishing, honorary authorships, citation cartels, and misuse of indicators (Binswanger, 2015; Cronin and Sugimoto, 2014; Frey and Osterloh, 2006; Haustein and Larivière, 2015; Weingart, 2005).

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.009053354 = product of:
  0.04526677 = sum of:
    0.04526677 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04526677 = score(doc=2502,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 2502, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2502)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This brief communication presents preliminary findings on automated Twitter accounts distributing links to scientific articles deposited on the preprint repository arXiv. It discusses the implication of the presence of such bots from the perspective of social media metrics (altmetrics), where mentions of scholarly documents on Twitter have been suggested as a means of measuring impact that is both broader and timelier than citations. Our results show that automated Twitter accounts create a considerable amount of tweets to scientific articles and that they behave differently than common social bots, which has critical implications for the use of raw tweet counts in research evaluation and assessment. We discuss some definitions of Twitter cyborgs and bots in scholarly communication and propose distinguishing between different levels of engagement-that is, differentiating between tweeting only bibliographic information to discussing or commenting on the content of a scientific work.

0.0075444616 = product of:
  0.03772231 = sum of:
    0.03772231 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03772231 = score(doc=2933,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 2933, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2933)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

For more than 40 years, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now part of Thomson Reuters) produced the only available bibliographic databases from which bibliometricians could compile large-scale bibliometric indicators. ISI's citation indexes, now regrouped under the Web of Science (WoS), were the major sources of bibliometric data until 2004, when Scopus was launched by the publisher Reed Elsevier. For those who perform bibliometric analyses and comparisons of countries or institutions, the existence of these two major databases raises the important question of the comparability and stability of statistics obtained from different data sources. This paper uses macrolevel bibliometric indicators to compare results obtained from the WoS and Scopus. It shows that the correlations between the measures obtained with both databases for the number of papers and the number of citations received by countries, as well as for their ranks, are extremely high. There is also a very high correlation when countries' papers are broken down by field. The paper thus provides evidence that indicators of scientific production and citations at the country level are stable and largely independent of the database.

0.005179716 = product of:
  0.02589858 = sum of:
    0.02589858 = product of:
      0.05179716 = sum of:
        0.05179716 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05179716 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35