-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.01
0.006248733 = product of:
0.04374113 = sum of:
0.034186658 = weight(_text_:media in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034186658 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
0.02820796 = queryNorm
0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
0.009554473 = product of:
0.019108946 = sum of:
0.019108946 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019108946 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02820796 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Haustein, S.; Peters, I.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.; Larivière, V.: Tweeting biomedicine : an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature (2014)
0.00
0.0042295023 = product of:
0.059213027 = sum of:
0.059213027 = weight(_text_:media in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059213027 = score(doc=1229,freq=6.0), product of:
0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
0.02820796 = queryNorm
0.44816777 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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.
-
Thelwall, M.: Web indicators for research evaluation : a practical guide (2016)
0.00
0.0035659042 = product of:
0.049922656 = sum of:
0.049922656 = weight(_text_:daten in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049922656 = score(doc=3384,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13425784 = queryWeight, product of:
4.759573 = idf(docFreq=1029, maxDocs=44218)
0.02820796 = queryNorm
0.37184164 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.759573 = idf(docFreq=1029, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- RSWK
- Altmetrische Daten
- Subject
- Altmetrische Daten
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Rezaie, S.: Assessing the citation impact of books : the role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus (2011)
0.00
0.0024419043 = product of:
0.034186658 = sum of:
0.034186658 = weight(_text_:media in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034186658 = score(doc=4920,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
0.02820796 = queryNorm
0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- Citation indictors are increasingly used in some subject areas to support peer review in the evaluation of researchers and departments. Nevertheless, traditional journal-based citation indexes may be inadequate for the citation impact assessment of book-based disciplines. This article examines whether online citations from Google Books and Google Scholar can provide alternative sources of citation evidence. To investigate this, we compared the citation counts to 1,000 books submitted to the 2008 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) from Google Books and Google Scholar with Scopus citations across seven book-based disciplines (archaeology; law; politics and international studies; philosophy; sociology; history; and communication, cultural, and media studies). Google Books and Google Scholar citations to books were 1.4 and 3.2 times more common than were Scopus citations, and their medians were more than twice and three times as high as were Scopus median citations, respectively. This large number of citations is evidence that in book-oriented disciplines in the social sciences, arts, and humanities, online book citations may be sufficiently numerous to support peer review for research evaluation, at least in the United Kingdom.
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.00
9.651475E-4 = product of:
0.013512065 = sum of:
0.013512065 = product of:
0.02702413 = sum of:
0.02702413 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02702413 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02820796 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 12:43:51
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.00
8.1895484E-4 = product of:
0.011465367 = sum of:
0.011465367 = product of:
0.022930734 = sum of:
0.022930734 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022930734 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02820796 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.00
8.1895484E-4 = product of:
0.011465367 = sum of:
0.011465367 = product of:
0.022930734 = sum of:
0.022930734 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022930734 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02820796 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.00
8.1895484E-4 = product of:
0.011465367 = sum of:
0.011465367 = product of:
0.022930734 = sum of:
0.022930734 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022930734 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02820796 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.00
6.8246236E-4 = product of:
0.009554473 = sum of:
0.009554473 = product of:
0.019108946 = sum of:
0.019108946 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019108946 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02820796 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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.
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.00
6.8246236E-4 = product of:
0.009554473 = sum of:
0.009554473 = product of:
0.019108946 = sum of:
0.019108946 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019108946 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02820796 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, 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=57)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 6. 4.2012 18:16:22
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.00
6.8246236E-4 = product of:
0.009554473 = sum of:
0.009554473 = product of:
0.019108946 = sum of:
0.019108946 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019108946 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02820796 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3806, 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=3806)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Why are coauthored academic articles more cited : higher quality or larger audience? (2023)
0.00
6.8246236E-4 = product of:
0.009554473 = sum of:
0.009554473 = product of:
0.019108946 = sum of:
0.019108946 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019108946 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02820796 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
