Search (54 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.04 
    0.043636583 = product of:
  0.087273166 = sum of:
    0.029653627 = weight(_text_:management in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029653627 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.057619542 = sum of:
      0.025612153 = weight(_text_:science in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025612153 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.03200739 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03200739 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
    Social Science Research Network
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.6, S.614-635
  2. Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017) 0.02 
    0.02282866 = product of:
  0.04565732 = sum of:
    0.029653627 = weight(_text_:management in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029653627 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
    0.016003694 = product of:
      0.03200739 = sum of:
        0.03200739 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03200739 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.2, S.174-183
  3. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.02 
    0.017285863 = product of:
  0.06914345 = sum of:
    0.06914345 = sum of:
      0.030734586 = weight(_text_:science in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030734586 = score(doc=3211,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
      0.038408864 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038408864 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3036-3050
  4. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011) 0.02 
    0.015035374 = product of:
  0.060141496 = sum of:
    0.060141496 = sum of:
      0.021732632 = weight(_text_:science in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021732632 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
      0.038408864 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038408864 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  5. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.02 
    0.015035374 = product of:
  0.060141496 = sum of:
    0.060141496 = sum of:
      0.021732632 = weight(_text_:science in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021732632 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
      0.038408864 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038408864 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    19. 3.2016 12:22:00
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.960-966
  6. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.02 
    0.015035374 = product of:
  0.060141496 = sum of:
    0.060141496 = sum of:
      0.021732632 = weight(_text_:science in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021732632 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
      0.038408864 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038408864 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    28. 7.2018 10:00:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.8, S.959-973
  7. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010) 0.01 
    0.0144048855 = product of:
  0.057619542 = sum of:
    0.057619542 = sum of:
      0.025612153 = weight(_text_:science in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025612153 = score(doc=4200,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
      0.03200739 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03200739 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  8. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.01 
    0.0144048855 = product of:
  0.057619542 = sum of:
    0.057619542 = sum of:
      0.025612153 = weight(_text_:science in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025612153 = score(doc=57,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
      0.03200739 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03200739 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Webometric network analyses have been used to map the connectivity of groups of websites to identify clusters, important sites or overall structure. Such analyses have mainly been based upon hyperlink counts, the number of hyperlinks between a pair of websites, although some have used title mentions or URL citations instead. The ability to automatically gather hyperlink counts from Yahoo! ceased in April 2011 and the ability to manually gather such counts was due to cease by early 2012, creating a need for alternatives. This article assesses URL citations and title mentions as possible replacements for hyperlinks in both binary and weighted direct link and co-inlink network diagrams. It also assesses three different types of data for the network connections: hit count estimates, counts of matching URLs, and filtered counts of matching URLs. Results from analyses of U.S. library and information science departments and U.K. universities give evidence that metrics based upon URLs or titles can be appropriate replacements for metrics based upon hyperlinks for both binary and weighted networks, although filtered counts of matching URLs are necessary to give the best results for co-title mention and co-URL citation network diagrams.
    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
  9. Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.: Scholars on soap boxes : science communication and dissemination in TED videos (2013) 0.01 
    0.005062047 = product of:
  0.020248188 = sum of:
    0.020248188 = product of:
      0.040496375 = sum of:
        0.040496375 = weight(_text_:science in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040496375 = score(doc=678,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Online videos provide a novel, and often interactive, platform for the popularization of science. One successful collection is hosted on the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) website. This study uses a range of bibliometric (citation) and webometric (usage and bookmarking) indicators to examine TED videos in order to provide insights into the type and scope of their impact. The results suggest that TED Talks impact primarily the public sphere, with about three-quarters of a billion total views, rather than the academic realm. Differences were found among broad disciplinary areas, with art and design videos having generally lower levels of impact but science and technology videos generating otherwise average impact for TED. Many of the metrics were only loosely related, but there was a general consensus about the most popular videos as measured through views or comments on YouTube and the TED site. Moreover, most videos were found in at least one online syllabus and videos in online syllabi tended to be more viewed, discussed, and blogged. Less-liked videos generated more discussion, although this may be because they are more controversial. Science and technology videos presented by academics were more liked than those by nonacademics, showing that academics are not disadvantaged in this new media environment.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.663-674
  10. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.; Oppenheim, C.: Variations between subjects in the extent to which the social sciences have become more interdisciplinary (2011) 0.00 
    0.0045276317 = product of:
  0.018110527 = sum of:
    0.018110527 = product of:
      0.036221053 = sum of:
        0.036221053 = weight(_text_:science in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036221053 = score(doc=4465,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.6, S.1118-1129
  11. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Academia.edu : Social network or Academic Network? (2014) 0.00 
    0.0045276317 = product of:
  0.018110527 = sum of:
    0.018110527 = product of:
      0.036221053 = sum of:
        0.036221053 = weight(_text_:science in 1234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036221053 = score(doc=1234,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 1234, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Academic social network sites Academia.edu and ResearchGate, and reference sharing sites Mendeley, Bibsonomy, Zotero, and CiteULike, give scholars the ability to publicize their research outputs and connect with each other. With millions of users, these are a significant addition to the scholarly communication and academic information-seeking eco-structure. There is thus a need to understand the role that they play and the changes, if any, that they can make to the dynamics of academic careers. This article investigates attributes of philosophy scholars on Academia.edu, introducing a median-based, time-normalizing method to adjust for time delays in joining the site. In comparison to students, faculty tend to attract more profile views but female philosophers did not attract more profile views than did males, suggesting that academic capital drives philosophy uses of the site more than does friendship and networking. Secondary analyses of law, history, and computer science confirmed the faculty advantage (in terms of higher profile views) except for females in law and females in computer science. There was also a female advantage for both faculty and students in law and computer science as well as for history students. Hence, Academia.edu overall seems to reflect a hybrid of scholarly norms (the faculty advantage) and a female advantage that is suggestive of general social networking norms. Finally, traditional bibliometric measures did not correlate with any Academia.edu metrics for philosophers, perhaps because more senior academics use the site less extensively or because of the range informal scholarly activities that cannot be measured by bibliometric methods.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.721-731
  12. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? : An analysis of mendeley readers (2015) 0.00 
    0.0045276317 = product of:
  0.018110527 = sum of:
    0.018110527 = product of:
      0.036221053 = sum of:
        0.036221053 = weight(_text_:science in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036221053 = score(doc=1850,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 1850, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1850)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    International collaboration tends to result in more highly cited research and, partly as a result of this, many research funding schemes are specifically international in scope. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether this citation advantage is the result of higher quality research or due to other factors, such as a larger audience for the publications. To test whether the apparent advantage of internationally collaborative research may be due to additional interest in articles from the countries of the authors, this article assesses the extent to which the national affiliations of the authors of articles affect the national affiliations of their Mendeley readers. Based on English-language Web of Science articles in 10 fields from science, medicine, social science, and the humanities, the results of statistical models comparing author and reader affiliations suggest that, in most fields, Mendeley users are disproportionately readers of articles authored from within their own country. In addition, there are several cases in which Mendeley users from certain countries tend to ignore articles from specific other countries, although it is not clear whether this reflects national biases or different national specialisms within a field. In conclusion, research funders should not incentivize international collaboration on the basis that it is, in general, higher quality because its higher impact may be primarily due to its larger audience. Moreover, authors should guard against national biases in their reading to select only the best and most relevant publications to inform their research.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.6, S.1124-1135
  13. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: News stories as evidence for research? : BBC citations from articles, Books, and Wikipedia (2017) 0.00 
    0.0039210445 = product of:
  0.015684178 = sum of:
    0.015684178 = product of:
      0.031368356 = sum of:
        0.031368356 = weight(_text_:science in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031368356 = score(doc=3760,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Although news stories target the general public and are sometimes inaccurate, they can serve as sources of real-world information for researchers. This article investigates the extent to which academics exploit journalism using content and citation analyses of online BBC News stories cited by Scopus articles. A total of 27,234 Scopus-indexed publications have cited at least one BBC News story, with a steady annual increase. Citations from the arts and humanities (2.8% of publications in 2015) and social sciences (1.5%) were more likely than citations from medicine (0.1%) and science (<0.1%). Surprisingly, half of the sampled Scopus-cited science and technology (53%) and medicine and health (47%) stories were based on academic research, rather than otherwise unpublished information, suggesting that researchers have chosen a lower-quality secondary source for their citations. Nevertheless, the BBC News stories that were most frequently cited by Scopus, Google Books, and Wikipedia introduced new information from many different topics, including politics, business, economics, statistics, and reports about events. Thus, news stories are mediating real-world knowledge into the academic domain, a potential cause for concern.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.2017-2028
  14. Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: How quickly do publications get read? : the evolution of mendeley reader counts for new articles (2018) 0.00 
    0.0039210445 = product of:
  0.015684178 = sum of:
    0.015684178 = product of:
      0.031368356 = sum of:
        0.031368356 = weight(_text_:science in 4015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031368356 = score(doc=4015,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 4015, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4015)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Within science, citation counts are widely used to estimate research impact but publication delays mean that they are not useful for recent research. This gap can be filled by Mendeley reader counts, which are valuable early impact indicators for academic articles because they appear before citations and correlate strongly with them. Nevertheless, it is not known how Mendeley readership counts accumulate within the year of publication, and so it is unclear how soon they can be used. In response, this paper reports a longitudinal weekly study of the Mendeley readers of articles in 6 library and information science journals from 2016. The results suggest that Mendeley readers accrue from when articles are first available online and continue to steadily build. For journals with large publication delays, articles can already have substantial numbers of readers by their publication date. Thus, Mendeley reader counts may even be useful as early impact indicators for articles before they have been officially published in a journal issue. If field normalized indicators are needed, then these can be generated when journal issues are published using the online first date.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.158-167
  15. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology (2013) 0.00 
    0.0038418232 = product of:
  0.015367293 = sum of:
    0.015367293 = product of:
      0.030734586 = sum of:
        0.030734586 = weight(_text_:science in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030734586 = score(doc=737,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This study investigates a range of metrics available when a nanoscience and nanotechnology article is published to see which metrics correlate more with the number of citations to the article. It also introduces the degree of internationality of journals and references as new metrics for this purpose. The journal impact factor; the impact of references; the internationality of authors, journals, and references; and the number of authors, institutions, and references were all calculated for papers published in nanoscience and nanotechnology journals in the Web of Science from 2007 to 2009. Using a zero-inflated negative binomial regression model on the data set, the impact factor of the publishing journal and the citation impact of the cited references were found to be the most effective determinants of citation counts in all four time periods. In the entire 2007 to 2009 period, apart from journal internationality and author numbers and internationality, all other predictor variables had significant effects on citation counts.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.1055-1064
  16. Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? : Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals (2016) 0.00 
    0.0038418232 = product of:
  0.015367293 = sum of:
    0.015367293 = product of:
      0.030734586 = sum of:
        0.030734586 = weight(_text_:science in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030734586 = score(doc=2495,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.1, S.191-199
  17. Orduna-Malea, E.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Web citations in patents : evidence of technological impact? (2017) 0.00 
    0.0038418232 = product of:
  0.015367293 = sum of:
    0.015367293 = product of:
      0.030734586 = sum of:
        0.030734586 = weight(_text_:science in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030734586 = score(doc=3764,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Patents sometimes cite webpages either as general background to the problem being addressed or to identify prior publications that limit the scope of the patent granted. Counts of the number of patents citing an organization's website may therefore provide an indicator of its technological capacity or relevance. This article introduces methods to extract URL citations from patents and evaluates the usefulness of counts of patent web citations as a technology indicator. An analysis of patents citing 200 US universities or 177 UK universities found computer science and engineering departments to be frequently cited, as well as research-related webpages, such as Wikipedia, YouTube, or the Internet Archive. Overall, however, patent URL citations seem to be frequent enough to be useful for ranking major US and the top few UK universities if popular hosted subdomains are filtered out, but the hit count estimates on the first search engine results page should not be relied upon for accuracy.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.1967-1974
  18. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: ¬A comparison of methods for collecting web citation data for academic organizations (2011) 0.00 
    0.0032015191 = product of:
  0.012806077 = sum of:
    0.012806077 = product of:
      0.025612153 = sum of:
        0.025612153 = weight(_text_:science in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025612153 = score(doc=4626,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  19. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Abdoli, M.: ¬The role of online videos in research communication : a content analysis of YouTube videos cited in academic publications (2012) 0.00 
    0.0032015191 = product of:
  0.012806077 = sum of:
    0.012806077 = product of:
      0.025612153 = sum of:
        0.025612153 = weight(_text_:science in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025612153 = score(doc=382,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Although there is some evidence that online videos are increasingly used by academics for informal scholarly communication and teaching, the extent to which they are used in published academic research is unknown. This article explores the extent to which YouTube videos are cited in academic publications and whether there are significant broad disciplinary differences in this practice. To investigate, we extracted the URL citations to YouTube videos from academic publications indexed by Scopus. A total of 1,808 Scopus publications cited at least one YouTube video, and there was a steady upward growth in citing online videos within scholarly publications from 2006 to 2011, with YouTube citations being most common within arts and humanities (0.3%) and the social sciences (0.2%). A content analysis of 551 YouTube videos cited by research articles indicated that in science (78%) and in medicine and health sciences (77%), over three fourths of the cited videos had either direct scientific (e.g., laboratory experiments) or scientific-related contents (e.g., academic lectures or education) whereas in the arts and humanities, about 80% of the YouTube videos had art, culture, or history themes, and in the social sciences, about 63% of the videos were related to news, politics, advertisements, and documentaries. This shows both the disciplinary differences and the wide variety of innovative research communication uses found for videos within the different subject areas.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.9, S.1710-1727
  20. 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 
    0.0032015191 = product of:
  0.012806077 = sum of:
    0.012806077 = product of:
      0.025612153 = sum of:
        0.025612153 = weight(_text_:science in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025612153 = score(doc=1229,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Data collected by social media platforms have been introduced as new sources for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation analysis. Data generated from social media activities can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This article aims to provide systematic evidence about how often Twitter is used to disseminate information about journal articles in the biomedical sciences. The analysis is based on 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science and published between 2010 and 2012. The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed and compared to citations to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter and how far tweets correlate with citation impact. With less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general but differs between journals and specialties. Correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework using the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media-based metrics.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.656-669

Authors

Types

  • a 53
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications