Search (112 results, page 1 of 6)

0.002764888 = product of:
  0.024883993 = sum of:
    0.0050070276 = weight(_text_:in in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050070276 = score(doc=4200,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.019876964 = product of:
      0.029815445 = sum of:
        0.0149750775 = weight(_text_:29 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0149750775 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.077061385 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
        0.014840367 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014840367 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

Abstract

A huge number of informal messages are posted every day in social network sites, blogs, and discussion forums. Emotions seem to be frequently important in these texts for expressing friendship, showing social support or as part of online arguments. Algorithms to identify sentiment and sentiment strength are needed to help understand the role of emotion in this informal communication and also to identify inappropriate or anomalous affective utterances, potentially associated with threatening behavior to the self or others. Nevertheless, existing sentiment detection algorithms tend to be commercially oriented, designed to identify opinions about products rather than user behaviors. This article partly fills this gap with a new algorithm, SentiStrength, to extract sentiment strength from informal English text, using new methods to exploit the de facto grammars and spelling styles of cyberspace. Applied to MySpace comments and with a lookup table of term sentiment strengths optimized by machine learning, SentiStrength is able to predict positive emotion with 60.6% accuracy and negative emotion with 72.8% accuracy, both based upon strength scales of 1-5. The former, but not the latter, is better than baseline and a wide range of general machine learning approaches.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:29:23

Footnote

Vgl. auch das Erratum in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.419

0.002706154 = product of:
  0.024355385 = sum of:
    0.0044784215 = weight(_text_:in in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044784215 = score(doc=178,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
    0.019876964 = product of:
      0.029815445 = sum of:
        0.0149750775 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0149750775 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.077061385 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
        0.014840367 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014840367 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

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

0.0015553564 = product of:
  0.013998208 = sum of:
    0.0070098387 = weight(_text_:in in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070098387 = score(doc=364,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
    0.006988369 = product of:
      0.020965107 = sum of:
        0.020965107 = weight(_text_:29 in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020965107 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.077061385 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

Abstract

Conducting a literature review is an important activity for postgraduates and many undergraduates. Librarians can play an important role, directing students to digital libraries, compiling online subject reSource lists, and educating about the need to evaluate the quality of online resources. In order to conduct an effective literature search in a new area, however, in some subjects it is necessary to gain basic topic knowledge, including specialist vocabularies. Google's link-based page ranking algorithm makes this search engine an ideal tool for finding specialist topic introductory material, particularly in computer science, and so librarians should be teaching this as part of a strategic literature review approach.

Date

3. 6.2007 16:37:29

0.0015237164 = product of:
  0.013713447 = sum of:
    0.0067176316 = weight(_text_:in in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067176316 = score(doc=2734,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.006995816 = product of:
      0.020987447 = sum of:
        0.020987447 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020987447 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

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

0.0014494912 = product of:
  0.013045421 = sum of:
    0.007109274 = weight(_text_:in in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007109274 = score(doc=4345,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
    0.0059361467 = product of:
      0.01780844 = sum of:
        0.01780844 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01780844 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, 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=4345)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

Abstract

The microblogging site Twitter generates a constant stream of communication, some of which concerns events of general interest. An analysis of Twitter may, therefore, give insights into why particular events resonate with the population. This article reports a study of a month of English Twitter posts, assessing whether popular events are typically associated with increases in sentiment strength, as seems intuitively likely. Using the top 30 events, determined by a measure of relative increase in (general) term usage, the results give strong evidence that popular events are normally associated with increases in negative sentiment strength and some evidence that peaks of interest in events have stronger positive sentiment than the time before the peak. It seems that many positive events, such as the Oscars, are capable of generating increased negative sentiment in reaction to them. Nevertheless, the surprisingly small average change in sentiment associated with popular events (typically 1% and only 6% for Tiger Woods' confessions) is consistent with events affording posters opportunities to satisfy pre-existing personal goals more often than eliciting instinctive reactions.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:27:06

0.0013908951 = product of:
  0.012518056 = sum of:
    0.0065819086 = weight(_text_:in in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065819086 = score(doc=2856,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
    0.0059361467 = product of:
      0.01780844 = sum of:
        0.01780844 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01780844 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

Abstract

This article introduces a new source of evidence of the value of medical-related research: citations from clinical guidelines. These give evidence that research findings have been used to inform the day-to-day practice of medical staff. To identify whether citations from guidelines can give different information from that of traditional citation counts, this article assesses the extent to which references in clinical guidelines tend to be highly cited in the academic literature and highly read in Mendeley. Using evidence from the United Kingdom, references associated with the UK's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines tended to be substantially more cited than comparable articles, unless they had been published in the most recent 3 years. Citation counts also seemed to be stronger indicators than Mendeley readership altmetrics. Hence, although presence in guidelines may be particularly useful to highlight the contributions of recently published articles, for older articles citation counts may already be sufficient to recognize their contributions to health in society.

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

0.0013331628 = product of:
  0.011998464 = sum of:
    0.006008433 = weight(_text_:in in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006008433 = score(doc=2536,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
    0.005990031 = product of:
      0.017970093 = sum of:
        0.017970093 = weight(_text_:29 in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017970093 = score(doc=2536,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.077061385 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

Abstract

Commercial search engines are now playing an increasingly important role in Web information dissemination and access. Of particular interest to business and national governments is whether the big engines have coverage biased towards the US or other countries. In our study we tested for national biases in three major search engines and found significant differences in their coverage of commercial Web sites. The US sites were much better covered than the others in the study: sites from China, Taiwan and Singapore. We then examined the possible technical causes of the differences and found that the language of a site does not affect its coverage by search engines. However, the visibility of a site, measured by the number of links to it, affects its chance to be covered by search engines. We conclude that the coverage bias does exist but this is due not to deliberate choices of the search engines but occurs as a natural result of cumulative advantage effects of US sites on the Web. Nevertheless, the bias remains a cause for international concern.

Date

14. 8.2004 10:30:29

0.0012533593 = product of:
  0.011280233 = sum of:
    0.0063334443 = weight(_text_:in in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0063334443 = score(doc=2593,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.0049467892 = product of:
      0.014840367 = sum of:
        0.014840367 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014840367 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

Abstract

Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Object

Research Papers in Economics

0.0012079094 = product of:
  0.010871185 = sum of:
    0.0059243953 = weight(_text_:in in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059243953 = score(doc=995,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.0049467892 = product of:
      0.014840367 = sum of:
        0.014840367 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014840367 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = 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)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

Abstract

Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50

0.0011766955 = product of:
  0.010590259 = sum of:
    0.0046541123 = weight(_text_:in in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046541123 = score(doc=4291,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
    0.0059361467 = product of:
      0.01780844 = sum of:
        0.01780844 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01780844 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

Abstract

Counts of tweets and Mendeley user libraries have been proposed as altmetric alternatives to citation counts for the impact assessment of articles. Although both have been investigated to discover whether they correlate with article citations, it is not known whether users tend to tweet or save (in Mendeley) the same kinds of articles that they cite. In response, this article compares pairs of articles that are tweeted, saved to a Mendeley library, or cited by the same user, but possibly a different user for each source. The study analyzes 1,131,318 articles published in 2012, with minimum tweeted (10), saved to Mendeley (100), and cited (10) thresholds. The results show surprisingly minor overall overlaps between the three phenomena. The importance of journals for Twitter and the presence of many bots at different levels of activity suggest that this site has little value for impact altmetrics. The moderate differences between patterns of saving and citation suggest that Mendeley can be used for some types of impact assessments, but sensitivity is needed for underlying differences.

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

0.0011109689 = product of:
  0.00999872 = sum of:
    0.0050070276 = weight(_text_:in in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050070276 = score(doc=4465,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
    0.0049916925 = product of:
      0.0149750775 = sum of:
        0.0149750775 = weight(_text_:29 in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0149750775 = score(doc=4465,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.077061385 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4465, 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=4465)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

Abstract

Increasing interdisciplinarity has been a policy objective since the 1990s, promoted by many governments and funding agencies, but the question is: How deeply has this affected the social sciences? Although numerous articles have suggested that research has become more interdisciplinary, yet no study has compared the extent to which the interdisciplinarity of different social science subjects has changed. To address this gap, changes in the level of interdisciplinarity since 1980 are investigated for subjects with many articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), using the percentage of cross-disciplinary citing documents (PCDCD) to evaluate interdisciplinarity. For the 14 SSCI subjects investigated, the median level of interdisciplinarity, as measured using cross-disciplinary citations, declined from 1980 to 1990, but rose sharply between 1990 and 2000, confirming previous research. This increase was not fully matched by an increase in the percentage of articles that were assigned to more than one subject category. Nevertheless, although on average the social sciences have recently become more interdisciplinary, the extent of this change varies substantially from subject to subject. The SSCI subject with the largest increase in interdisciplinarity between 1990 and 2000 was Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) but there is evidence that the level of interdisciplinarity of IS&LS increased less quickly during the first decade of this century.

Date

4. 7.2011 19:39:29

0.0011109689 = product of:
  0.00999872 = sum of:
    0.0050070276 = weight(_text_:in in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050070276 = score(doc=1331,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 1331, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1331)
    0.0049916925 = product of:
      0.0149750775 = sum of:
        0.0149750775 = weight(_text_:29 in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0149750775 = score(doc=1331,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.077061385 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1331, 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=1331)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

Abstract

Some curricula vitae (web CVs) of academics on the web, including homepages and publication lists, link to open-access (OA) articles, resources, abstracts in publishers' websites, or academic discussions, helping to disseminate research. To assess how common such practices are and whether they vary by discipline, gender, and country, the authors conducted a large-scale e-mail survey of astronomy and astrophysics, public health, environmental engineering, and philosophy across 15 European countries and analyzed hyperlinks from web CVs of academics. About 60% of the 2,154 survey responses reported having a web CV or something similar, and there were differences between disciplines, genders, and countries. A follow-up outlink analysis of 2,700 web CVs found that a third had at least one outlink to an OA target, typically a public eprint archive or an individual self-archived file. This proportion was considerably higher in astronomy (48%) and philosophy (37%) than in environmental engineering (29%) and public health (21%). There were also differences in linking to publishers' websites, resources, and discussions. Perhaps most important, however, the amount of linking to OA publications seems to be much lower than allowed by publishers and journals, suggesting that many opportunities for disseminating full-text research online are being missed, especially in disciplines without established repositories. Moreover, few academics seem to be exploiting their CVs to link to discussions, resources, or article abstracts, which seems to be another missed opportunity for publicizing research.

0.0011109689 = product of:
  0.00999872 = sum of:
    0.0050070276 = weight(_text_:in in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050070276 = score(doc=3440,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
    0.0049916925 = product of:
      0.0149750775 = sum of:
        0.0149750775 = weight(_text_:29 in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0149750775 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.077061385 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = 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)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

Abstract

Individual academics and research evaluators often need to assess the value of published research. Although citation counts are a recognized indicator of scholarly impact, alternative data is needed to provide evidence of other types of impact, including within education and wider society. Wikipedia is a logical choice for both of these because the role of a general encyclopaedia is to be an understandable repository of facts about a diverse array of topics and hence it may cite research to support its claims. To test whether Wikipedia could provide new evidence about the impact of scholarly research, this article counted citations to 302,328 articles and 18,735 monographs in English indexed by Scopus in the period 2005 to 2012. The results show that citations from Wikipedia to articles are too rare for most research evaluation purposes, with only 5% of articles being cited in all fields. In contrast, a third of monographs have at least one citation from Wikipedia, with the most in the arts and humanities. Hence, Wikipedia citations can provide extra impact evidence for academic monographs. Nevertheless, the results may be relatively easily manipulated and so Wikipedia is not recommended for evaluations affecting stakeholder interests.

Date

16.11.2017 13:29:45

0.0011059797 = product of:
  0.009953817 = sum of:
    0.0050070276 = weight(_text_:in in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050070276 = score(doc=586,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.0049467892 = product of:
      0.014840367 = sum of:
        0.014840367 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014840367 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = 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)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

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.

0.0010877887 = product of:
  0.009790098 = sum of:
    0.003800067 = weight(_text_:in in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003800067 = score(doc=2495,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
    0.005990031 = product of:
      0.017970093 = sum of:
        0.017970093 = weight(_text_:29 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017970093 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.077061385 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

Abstract

In theory, articles can attract readers on the social reference sharing site Mendeley before they can attract citations, so Mendeley altmetrics could provide early indications of article impact. This article investigates the influence of time on the number of Mendeley readers of an article through a theoretical discussion and an investigation into the relationship between counts of readers of, and citations to, 4 general library and information science (LIS) journals. For this discipline, it takes about 7 years for articles to attract as many Scopus citations as Mendeley readers, and after this the Spearman correlation between readers and citers is stable at about 0.6 for all years. This suggests that Mendeley readership counts may be useful impact indicators for both newer and older articles. The lack of dates for individual Mendeley article readers and an unknown bias toward more recent articles mean that readership data should be normalized individually by year, however, before making any comparisons between articles published in different years.

Date

27.12.2015 11:29:37

0.0010818016 = product of:
  0.009736214 = sum of:
    0.003800067 = weight(_text_:in in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003800067 = score(doc=3211,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
    0.0059361467 = product of:
      0.01780844 = sum of:
        0.01780844 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01780844 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

Abstract

Scientists and managers using citation-based indicators to help evaluate research cannot evaluate recent articles because of the time needed for citations to accrue. Reading occurs before citing, however, and so it makes sense to count readers rather than citations for recent publications. To assess this, Mendeley readers and citations were obtained for articles from 2004 to late 2014 in five broad categories (agriculture, business, decision science, pharmacy, and the social sciences) and 50 subcategories. In these areas, citation counts tended to increase with every extra year since publication, and readership counts tended to increase faster initially but then stabilize after about 5 years. The correlation between citations and readers was also higher for longer time periods, stabilizing after about 5 years. Although there were substantial differences between broad fields and smaller differences between subfields, the results confirm the value of Mendeley reader counts as early scientific impact indicators.

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

0.0010522349 = product of:
  0.0094701145 = sum of:
    0.0044784215 = weight(_text_:in in 6116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044784215 = score(doc=6116,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 6116, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6116)
    0.0049916925 = product of:
      0.0149750775 = sum of:
        0.0149750775 = weight(_text_:29 in 6116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0149750775 = score(doc=6116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.077061385 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 6116, 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=6116)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

Abstract

Broad issue scanning is the task of identifying important public debates arising in a given broad issue; really simple syndication (RSS) feeds are a natural information source for investigating broad issues. RSS, as originally conceived, is a method for publishing timely and concise information on the Internet, for example, about the main stories in a news site or the latest postings in a blog. RSS feeds are potentially a nonintrusive source of high-quality data about public opinion: Monitoring a large number may allow quantitative methods to extract information relevant to a given need. In this article we describe an RSS feed-based coword frequency method to identify bursts of discussion relevant to a given broad issue. A case study of public science concerns is used to demonstrate the method and assess the suitability of raw RSS feeds for broad issue scanning (i.e., without data cleansing). An attempt to identify genuine science concern debates from the corpus through investigating the top 1,000 "burst" words found only two genuine debates, however. The low success rate was mainly caused by a few pathological feeds that dominated the results and obscured any significant debates. The results point to the need to develop effective data cleansing procedures for RSS feeds, particularly if there is not a large quantity of discussion about the broad issue, and a range of potential techniques is suggested. Finally, the analysis confirmed that the time series information generated by real-time monitoring of RSS feeds could usefully illustrate the evolution of new debates relevant to a broad issue.

Date

21.10.2006 19:29:49

9.855689E-4 = product of:
  0.008870119 = sum of:
    0.003878427 = weight(_text_:in in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003878427 = score(doc=63,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
    0.0049916925 = product of:
      0.0149750775 = sum of:
        0.0149750775 = weight(_text_:29 in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0149750775 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.077061385 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 63, 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=63)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

Abstract

YouTube is one of the world's most popular websites and hosts numerous amateur and professional videos. Comments on these videos might be researched to give insights into audience reactions to important issues or particular videos. Yet, little is known about YouTube discussions in general: how frequent they are, who typically participates, and the role of sentiment. This article fills this gap through an analysis of large samples of text comments on YouTube videos. The results identify patterns and give some benchmarks against which future YouTube research into individual videos can be compared. For instance, the typical YouTube comment was mildly positive, was posted by a 29-year-old male, and contained 58 characters. About 23% of comments in the complete comment sets were replies to previous comments. There was no typical density of discussion on YouTube videos in the sense of the proportion of replies to other comments: videos with both few and many replies were common. The YouTube audience engaged with each other disproportionately when making negative comments, however; positive comments elicited few replies. The biggest trigger of discussion seemed to be religion, whereas the videos attracting the least discussion were predominantly from the Music, Comedy, and How to & Style categories. This suggests different audience uses for YouTube, from passive entertainment to active debating.

9.805796E-4 = product of:
  0.008825216 = sum of:
    0.003878427 = weight(_text_:in in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003878427 = score(doc=3806,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
    0.0049467892 = product of:
      0.014840367 = sum of:
        0.014840367 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014840367 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

Abstract

Purpose Mendeley reader counts have been proposed as early indicators for the impact of academic publications. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether there are enough Mendeley readers for research evaluation purposes during the month when an article is first published. Design/methodology/approach Average Mendeley reader counts were compared to the average Scopus citation counts for 104,520 articles from ten disciplines during the second half of 2016. Findings Articles attracted, on average, between 0.1 and 0.8 Mendeley readers per article in the month in which they first appeared in Scopus. This is about ten times more than the average Scopus citation count. Research limitations/implications Other disciplines may use Mendeley more or less than the ten investigated here. The results are dependent on Scopus's indexing practices, and Mendeley reader counts can be manipulated and have national and seniority biases. Practical implications Mendeley reader counts during the month of publication are more powerful than Scopus citations for comparing the average impacts of groups of documents but are not high enough to differentiate between the impacts of typical individual articles. Originality/value This is the first multi-disciplinary and systematic analysis of Mendeley reader counts from the publication month of an article.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

9.6412044E-4 = product of:
  0.008677084 = sum of:
    0.0026870528 = weight(_text_:in in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0026870528 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 1813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1813)
    0.005990031 = product of:
      0.017970093 = sum of:
        0.017970093 = weight(_text_:29 in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017970093 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.077061385 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1813, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1813)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)

Abstract

ResearchGate is a social network site for academics to create their own profiles, list their publications, and interact with each other. Like Academia.edu, it provides a new way for scholars to disseminate their work and hence potentially changes the dynamics of informal scholarly communication. This article assesses whether ResearchGate usage and publication data broadly reflect existing academic hierarchies and whether individual countries are set to benefit or lose out from the site. The results show that rankings based on ResearchGate statistics correlate moderately well with other rankings of academic institutions, suggesting that ResearchGate use broadly reflects the traditional distribution of academic capital. Moreover, while Brazil, India, and some other countries seem to be disproportionately taking advantage of ResearchGate, academics in China, South Korea, and Russia may be missing opportunities to use ResearchGate to maximize the academic impact of their publications.

Date

26. 4.2015 19:29:49