Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Sugimoto, C.R."
  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  1. Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.: Scholars on soap boxes : science communication and dissemination in TED videos (2013) 0.02 
    0.015710408 = product of:
  0.031420816 = sum of:
    0.008101207 = weight(_text_:information in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008101207 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
    0.02331961 = product of:
      0.04663922 = sum of:
        0.04663922 = weight(_text_:technology in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04663922 = score(doc=678,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.32906836 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Online videos provide a novel, and often interactive, platform for the popularization of science. One successful collection is hosted on the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) website. This study uses a range of bibliometric (citation) and webometric (usage and bookmarking) indicators to examine TED videos in order to provide insights into the type and scope of their impact. The results suggest that TED Talks impact primarily the public sphere, with about three-quarters of a billion total views, rather than the academic realm. Differences were found among broad disciplinary areas, with art and design videos having generally lower levels of impact but science and technology videos generating otherwise average impact for TED. Many of the metrics were only loosely related, but there was a general consensus about the most popular videos as measured through views or comments on YouTube and the TED site. Moreover, most videos were found in at least one online syllabus and videos in online syllabi tended to be more viewed, discussed, and blogged. Less-liked videos generated more discussion, although this may be because they are more controversial. Science and technology videos presented by academics were more liked than those by nonacademics, showing that academics are not disadvantaged in this new media environment.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.663-674
  2. Haustein, S.; Peters, I.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.; Larivière, V.: Tweeting biomedicine : an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature (2014) 0.01 
    0.011558321 = product of:
  0.023116643 = sum of:
    0.011456838 = weight(_text_:information in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011456838 = score(doc=1229,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=1229,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Data collected by social media platforms have been introduced as new sources for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation analysis. Data generated from social media activities can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This article aims to provide systematic evidence about how often Twitter is used to disseminate information about journal articles in the biomedical sciences. The analysis is based on 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science and published between 2010 and 2012. The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed and compared to citations to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter and how far tweets correlate with citation impact. With less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general but differs between journals and specialties. Correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework using the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media-based metrics.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.656-669
  3. Larivière, V.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Macaluso, B.; Milojevi´c, S.; Cronin, B.; Thelwall, M.: arXiv E-prints and the journal of record : an analysis of roles and relationships (2014) 0.01 
    0.0098805055 = product of:
  0.019761011 = sum of:
    0.008101207 = weight(_text_:information in 1285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008101207 = score(doc=1285,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1285, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1285)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 1285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=1285,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 1285, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.6, S.1157-1169

Authors

Themes