Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

0.013874464 = product of:
  0.04162339 = sum of:
    0.04162339 = product of:
      0.062435087 = sum of:
        0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025961377 = score(doc=4626,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
        0.03647371 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03647371 = score(doc=4626,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  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.

0.013450166 = product of:
  0.040350497 = sum of:
    0.040350497 = product of:
      0.060525745 = sum of:
        0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025961377 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
        0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456437 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.00499627 = product of:
  0.01498881 = sum of:
    0.01498881 = product of:
      0.04496643 = sum of:
        0.04496643 = weight(_text_:online in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04496643 = score(doc=382,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.00499627 = product of:
  0.01498881 = sum of:
    0.01498881 = product of:
      0.04496643 = sum of:
        0.04496643 = weight(_text_:online in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04496643 = score(doc=678,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.004895325 = product of:
  0.0146859735 = sum of:
    0.0146859735 = product of:
      0.04405792 = sum of:
        0.04405792 = weight(_text_:online in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04405792 = score(doc=2768,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.284522 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although citation counts are often used to evaluate the research impact of academic publications, they are problematic for books that aim for educational or cultural impact. To fill this gap, this article assesses whether a number of simple metrics derived from Amazon.com reviews of academic books could provide evidence of their impact. Based on a set of 2,739 academic monographs from 2008 and a set of 1,305 best-selling books in 15 Amazon.com academic subject categories, the existence of significant but low or moderate correlations between citations and numbers of reviews, combined with other evidence, suggests that online book reviews tend to reflect the wider popularity of a book rather than its academic impact, although there are substantial disciplinary differences. Metrics based on online reviews are therefore recommended for the evaluation of books that aim at a wide audience inside or outside academia when it is important to capture the broader impacts of educational or cultural activities and when they cannot be manipulated in advance of the evaluation.

0.0048631616 = product of:
  0.014589485 = sum of:
    0.014589485 = product of:
      0.043768454 = sum of:
        0.043768454 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043768454 = score(doc=10,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Information Retrieval (IR) research typically evaluates search systems in terms of the standard precision, recall and F-measures to weight the relative importance of precision and recall (e.g. van Rijsbergen, 1979). All of these assess the extent to which the system returns good matches for a query. In contrast, webometric measures are designed specifically for web search engines and are designed to monitor changes in results over time and various aspects of the internal logic of the way in which search engine select the results to be returned. This chapter introduces a range of webometric measurements and illustrates them with case studies of Google, Bing and Yahoo! This is a very fertile area for simple and complex new investigations into search engine results.

Source

Innovations in information retrieval: perspectives for theory and practice. Eds.: A. Foster, u. P. Rafferty

0.0046085827 = product of:
  0.013825747 = sum of:
    0.013825747 = product of:
      0.04147724 = sum of:
        0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04147724 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:27:06

0.0046085827 = product of:
  0.013825747 = sum of:
    0.013825747 = product of:
      0.04147724 = sum of:
        0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04147724 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

0.0046085827 = product of:
  0.013825747 = sum of:
    0.013825747 = product of:
      0.04147724 = sum of:
        0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04147724 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

0.0046085827 = product of:
  0.013825747 = sum of:
    0.013825747 = product of:
      0.04147724 = sum of:
        0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04147724 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

0.0040794373 = product of:
  0.012238312 = sum of:
    0.012238312 = product of:
      0.036714934 = sum of:
        0.036714934 = weight(_text_:online in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036714934 = score(doc=3966,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The web contains a huge number of digital pictures. For scholars publishing such images it is important to know how well used their images are, but no method seems to have been developed for monitoring the value of academic images. In particular, can the impact of scientific or artistic images be assessed through identifying images copied or reused on the Internet? This article explores a case study of 260 NASA images to investigate whether the TinEye search engine could theoretically help to provide this information. The results show that the selected pictures had a median of 11 online copies each. However, a classification of 210 of these copies reveals that only 1.4% were explicitly used in academic publications, reflecting research impact, and the majority of the NASA pictures were used for informal scholarly (or educational) communication (37%). Additional analyses of world famous paintings and scientific images about pathology and molecular structures suggest that image contents are important for the type and extent of image use. Although it is reasonable to use statistics derived from TinEye for assessing image reuse value, the extent of its image indexing is not known.

0.0040794373 = product of:
  0.012238312 = sum of:
    0.012238312 = product of:
      0.036714934 = sum of:
        0.036714934 = weight(_text_:online in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036714934 = score(doc=4920,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Citation indictors are increasingly used in some subject areas to support peer review in the evaluation of researchers and departments. Nevertheless, traditional journal-based citation indexes may be inadequate for the citation impact assessment of book-based disciplines. This article examines whether online citations from Google Books and Google Scholar can provide alternative sources of citation evidence. To investigate this, we compared the citation counts to 1,000 books submitted to the 2008 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) from Google Books and Google Scholar with Scopus citations across seven book-based disciplines (archaeology; law; politics and international studies; philosophy; sociology; history; and communication, cultural, and media studies). Google Books and Google Scholar citations to books were 1.4 and 3.2 times more common than were Scopus citations, and their medians were more than twice and three times as high as were Scopus median citations, respectively. This large number of citations is evidence that in book-oriented disciplines in the social sciences, arts, and humanities, online book citations may be sufficiently numerous to support peer review for research evaluation, at least in the United Kingdom.

0.0040794373 = product of:
  0.012238312 = sum of:
    0.012238312 = product of:
      0.036714934 = sum of:
        0.036714934 = weight(_text_:online in 3226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036714934 = score(doc=3226,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 3226, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3226)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Scholars writing books that are widely used to support teaching in higher education may be undervalued because of a lack of evidence of teaching value. Although sales data may give credible evidence for textbooks, these data may poorly reflect educational uses of other types of books. As an alternative, this article proposes a method to search automatically for mentions of books in online academic course syllabi based on Bing searches for syllabi mentioning a given book, filtering out false matches through an extensive set of rules. The method had an accuracy of over 90% based on manual checks of a sample of 2,600 results from the initial Bing searches. Over one third of about 14,000 monographs checked had one or more academic syllabus mention, with more in the arts and humanities (56%) and social sciences (52%). Low but significant correlations between syllabus mentions and citations across most fields, except the social sciences, suggest that books tend to have different levels of impact for teaching and research. In conclusion, the automatic syllabus search method gives a new way to estimate the educational utility of books in a way that sales data and citation counts cannot.

0.0040794373 = product of:
  0.012238312 = sum of:
    0.012238312 = product of:
      0.036714934 = sum of:
        0.036714934 = weight(_text_:online in 4015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036714934 = score(doc=4015,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 4015, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4015)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0038404856 = product of:
  0.011521457 = sum of:
    0.011521457 = product of:
      0.03456437 = sum of:
        0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456437 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

6. 4.2012 18:16:22

0.0038404856 = product of:
  0.011521457 = sum of:
    0.011521457 = product of:
      0.03456437 = sum of:
        0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456437 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0038404856 = product of:
  0.011521457 = sum of:
    0.011521457 = product of:
      0.03456437 = sum of:
        0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456437 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0034615172 = product of:
  0.010384551 = sum of:
    0.010384551 = product of:
      0.031153653 = sum of:
        0.031153653 = weight(_text_:online in 1004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031153653 = score(doc=1004,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 1004, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1004)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

General sentiment analysis for the social web has become increasingly useful for shedding light on the role of emotion in online communication and offline events in both academic research and data journalism. Nevertheless, existing general-purpose social web sentiment analysis algorithms may not be optimal for texts focussed around specific topics. This article introduces 2 new methods, mood setting and lexicon extension, to improve the accuracy of topic-specific lexical sentiment strength detection for the social web. Mood setting allows the topic mood to determine the default polarity for ostensibly neutral expressive text. Topic-specific lexicon extension involves adding topic-specific words to the default general sentiment lexicon. Experiments with 8 data sets show that both methods can improve sentiment analysis performance in corpora and are recommended when the topic focus is tightest.

0.0034615172 = product of:
  0.010384551 = sum of:
    0.010384551 = product of:
      0.031153653 = sum of:
        0.031153653 = weight(_text_:online in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031153653 = score(doc=1258,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Journal-based citations are an important source of data for impact indices. However, the impact of journal articles extends beyond formal scholarly discourse. Measuring online scholarly impact calls for new indices, complementary to the older ones. This article examines a possible alternative metric source, blog posts aggregated at ResearchBlogging.org, which discuss peer-reviewed articles and provide full bibliographic references. Articles reviewed in these blogs therefore receive "blog citations." We hypothesized that articles receiving blog citations close to their publication time receive more journal citations later than the articles in the same journal published in the same year that did not receive such blog citations. Statistically significant evidence for articles published in 2009 and 2010 support this hypothesis for seven of 12 journals (58%) in 2009 and 13 of 19 journals (68%) in 2010. We suggest, based on these results, that blog citations can be used as an alternative metric source.

0.0028845975 = product of:
  0.008653793 = sum of:
    0.008653793 = product of:
      0.025961377 = sum of:
        0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025961377 = score(doc=1331,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 1331, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1331)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.