-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.03
0.026755556 = product of:
0.040133335 = sum of:
0.0037074753 = weight(_text_:s in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0037074753 = score(doc=4200,freq=4.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
0.03642586 = product of:
0.054638788 = sum of:
0.027442828 = weight(_text_:29 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027442828 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14122012 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = 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)
0.02719596 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02719596 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1405835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2544-2558
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? (2015)
0.01
0.009415352 = product of:
0.014123027 = sum of:
0.003145897 = weight(_text_:s in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003145897 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1813, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1813)
0.01097713 = product of:
0.03293139 = sum of:
0.03293139 = weight(_text_:29 in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03293139 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14122012 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 26. 4.2015 19:29:49
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.5, S.876-889
-
Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? : Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals (2016)
0.01
0.009415352 = product of:
0.014123027 = sum of:
0.003145897 = weight(_text_:s in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003145897 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
0.01097713 = product of:
0.03293139 = sum of:
0.03293139 = weight(_text_:29 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03293139 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14122012 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 27.12.2015 11:29:37
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.1, S.191-199
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011)
0.01
0.009349521 = product of:
0.014024281 = sum of:
0.003145897 = weight(_text_:s in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003145897 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
0.010878384 = product of:
0.032635152 = sum of:
0.032635152 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032635152 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1405835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:27:06
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.406-418
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.01
0.009349521 = product of:
0.014024281 = sum of:
0.003145897 = weight(_text_:s in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003145897 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
0.010878384 = product of:
0.032635152 = sum of:
0.032635152 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032635152 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1405835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.960-966
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.01
0.009349521 = product of:
0.014024281 = sum of:
0.003145897 = weight(_text_:s in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003145897 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
0.010878384 = product of:
0.032635152 = sum of:
0.032635152 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032635152 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1405835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3036-3050
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.01
0.009349521 = product of:
0.014024281 = sum of:
0.003145897 = weight(_text_:s in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003145897 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
0.010878384 = product of:
0.032635152 = sum of:
0.032635152 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032635152 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1405835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.8, S.959-973
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.; Oppenheim, C.: Variations between subjects in the extent to which the social sciences have become more interdisciplinary (2011)
0.01
0.007846127 = product of:
0.01176919 = sum of:
0.002621581 = weight(_text_:s in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.002621581 = score(doc=4465,freq=2.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
0.00914761 = product of:
0.027442828 = sum of:
0.027442828 = weight(_text_:29 in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027442828 = score(doc=4465,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14122012 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 4. 7.2011 19:39:29
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.6, S.1118-1129
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Vis, F.: Commenting on YouTube videos : From guatemalan rock to El Big Bang (2012)
0.01
0.007846127 = product of:
0.01176919 = sum of:
0.002621581 = weight(_text_:s in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.002621581 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
0.00914761 = product of:
0.027442828 = sum of:
0.027442828 = weight(_text_:29 in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027442828 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14122012 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.3, S.616-629
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Disseminating research with web CV hyperlinks (2014)
0.01
0.007846127 = product of:
0.01176919 = sum of:
0.002621581 = weight(_text_:s in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.002621581 = score(doc=1331,freq=2.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1331, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1331)
0.00914761 = product of:
0.027442828 = sum of:
0.027442828 = weight(_text_:29 in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027442828 = score(doc=1331,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14122012 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.8, S.1615-1626
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Are wikipedia citations important evidence of the impact of scholarly articles and books? (2017)
0.01
0.007846127 = product of:
0.01176919 = sum of:
0.002621581 = weight(_text_:s in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.002621581 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
0.00914761 = product of:
0.027442828 = sum of:
0.027442828 = weight(_text_:29 in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027442828 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14122012 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 16.11.2017 13:29:45
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.3, S.762-779
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.01
0.0077912677 = product of:
0.011686902 = sum of:
0.002621581 = weight(_text_:s in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.002621581 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
0.009065321 = product of:
0.02719596 = sum of:
0.02719596 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02719596 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1405835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 6. 4.2012 18:16:22
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.805-816
-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.01
0.0077912677 = product of:
0.011686902 = sum of:
0.002621581 = weight(_text_:s in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.002621581 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
0.009065321 = product of:
0.02719596 = sum of:
0.02719596 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02719596 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1405835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.6, S.614-635
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.01
0.0077912677 = product of:
0.011686902 = sum of:
0.002621581 = weight(_text_:s in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.002621581 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
0.009065321 = product of:
0.02719596 = sum of:
0.02719596 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02719596 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1405835 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.2, S.174-183
-
Thelwall, M.: Web indicators for research evaluation : a practical guide (2016)
0.00
0.0015135708 = product of:
0.004540712 = sum of:
0.004540712 = weight(_text_:s in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004540712 = score(doc=3384,freq=6.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.10403037 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- In recent years there has been an increasing demand for research evaluation within universities and other research-based organisations. In parallel, there has been an increasing recognition that traditional citation-based indicators are not able to reflect the societal impacts of research and are slow to appear. This has led to the creation of new indicators for different types of research impact as well as timelier indicators, mainly derived from the Web. These indicators have been called altmetrics, webometrics or just web metrics. This book describes and evaluates a range of web indicators for aspects of societal or scholarly impact, discusses the theory and practice of using and evaluating web indicators for research assessment and outlines practical strategies for obtaining many web indicators. In addition to describing impact indicators for traditional scholarly outputs, such as journal articles and monographs, it also covers indicators for videos, datasets, software and other non-standard scholarly outputs. The book describes strategies to analyse web indicators for individual publications as well as to compare the impacts of groups of publications. The practical part of the book includes descriptions of how to use the free software Webometric Analyst to gather and analyse web data. This book is written for information science undergraduate and Master?s students that are learning about alternative indicators or scientometrics as well as Ph.D. students and other researchers and practitioners using indicators to help assess research impact or to study scholarly communication.
- Footnote
- Rez. in: JASIST 69(2018) no.3, S.498-499 (Isidro F. Aguillo).
- Pages
- 170 S
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Rezaie, S.: Can the impact of scholarly images be assessed online? : an exploratory study using image identification technology (2010)
0.00
0.0012358251 = product of:
0.0037074753 = sum of:
0.0037074753 = weight(_text_:s in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0037074753 = score(doc=3966,freq=4.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.9, S.1734-1744
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: ¬A comparison of methods for collecting web citation data for academic organizations (2011)
0.00
0.0012358251 = product of:
0.0037074753 = sum of:
0.0037074753 = weight(_text_:s in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0037074753 = score(doc=4626,freq=4.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The primary webometric method for estimating the online impact of an organization is to count links to its website. Link counts have been available from commercial search engines for over a decade but this was set to end by early 2012 and so a replacement is needed. This article compares link counts to two alternative methods: URL citations and organization title mentions. New variations of these methods are also introduced. The three methods are compared against each other using Yahoo!. Two of the three methods (URL citations and organization title mentions) are also compared against each other using Bing. Evidence from a case study of 131 UK universities and 49 US Library and Information Science (LIS) departments suggests that Bing's Hit Count Estimates (HCEs) for popular title searches are not useful for webometric research but that Yahoo!'s HCEs for all three types of search and Bing's URL citation HCEs seem to be consistent. For exact URL counts the results of all three methods in Yahoo! and both methods in Bing are also consistent. Four types of accuracy factors are also introduced and defined: search engine coverage, search engine retrieval variation, search engine retrieval anomalies, and query polysemy.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1488-1497
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Rezaie, S.: Assessing the citation impact of books : the role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus (2011)
0.00
0.0012358251 = product of:
0.0037074753 = sum of:
0.0037074753 = weight(_text_:s in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0037074753 = score(doc=4920,freq=4.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2147-2164
-
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
0.0012358251 = product of:
0.0037074753 = sum of:
0.0037074753 = weight(_text_:s in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0037074753 = score(doc=1229,freq=4.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.656-669
-
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)
0.00
0.0012358251 = product of:
0.0037074753 = sum of:
0.0037074753 = weight(_text_:s in 1285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0037074753 = score(doc=1285,freq=4.0), product of:
0.043647945 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.04014573 = queryNorm
0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 1285, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1285)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.6, S.1157-1169
