Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011) 0.01 
    0.008466644 = product of:
  0.04233322 = sum of:
    0.04233322 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04233322 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18236019 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:27:06
  2. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.01 
    0.008466644 = product of:
  0.04233322 = sum of:
    0.04233322 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04233322 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18236019 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    19. 3.2016 12:22:00
  3. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.01 
    0.008466644 = product of:
  0.04233322 = sum of:
    0.04233322 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04233322 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18236019 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    16.11.2016 11:07:22
  4. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.01 
    0.008466644 = product of:
  0.04233322 = sum of:
    0.04233322 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04233322 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18236019 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    28. 7.2018 10:00:22
  5. Thelwall, M.; Klitkou, A.; Verbeek, A.; Stuart, D.; Vincent, C.: Policy-relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields (2010) 0.01 
    0.0075771073 = product of:
  0.037885536 = sum of:
    0.037885536 = weight(_text_:7 in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037885536 = score(doc=3574,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.21960759 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1464-1475
  6. Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? : Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals (2016) 0.01 
    0.0075771073 = product of:
  0.037885536 = sum of:
    0.037885536 = weight(_text_:7 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037885536 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.21960759 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
  7. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010) 0.01 
    0.007055537 = product of:
  0.035277683 = sum of:
    0.035277683 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035277683 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18236019 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:29:23
  8. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.01 
    0.007055537 = product of:
  0.035277683 = sum of:
    0.035277683 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035277683 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18236019 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    6. 4.2012 18:16:22
  9. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.01 
    0.007055537 = product of:
  0.035277683 = sum of:
    0.035277683 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035277683 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18236019 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  10. Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017) 0.01 
    0.007055537 = product of:
  0.035277683 = sum of:
    0.035277683 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035277683 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18236019 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  11. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Patent citation analysis with Google (2017) 0.01 
    0.0063142553 = product of:
  0.031571276 = sum of:
    0.031571276 = weight(_text_:7 in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031571276 = score(doc=3317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.18300632 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Citations from patents to scientific publications provide useful evidence about the commercial impact of academic research, but automatically searchable databases are needed to exploit this connection for large-scale patent citation evaluations. Google covers multiple different international patent office databases but does not index patent citations or allow automatic searches. In response, this article introduces a semiautomatic indirect method via Bing to extract and filter patent citations from Google to academic papers with an overall precision of 98%. The method was evaluated with 322,192 science and engineering Scopus articles from every second year for the period 1996-2012. Although manual Google Patent searches give more results, especially for articles with many patent citations, the difference is not large enough to be a major problem. Within Biomedical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Pharmacology & Pharmaceutics, 7% to 10% of Scopus articles had at least one patent citation but other fields had far fewer, so patent citation analysis is only relevant for a minority of publications. Low but positive correlations between Google Patent citations and Scopus citations across all fields suggest that traditional citation counts cannot substitute for patent citations when evaluating research.

Authors

Themes