Search (116 results, page 6 of 6)

0.002609728 = product of:
  0.007829184 = sum of:
    0.007829184 = product of:
      0.015658367 = sum of:
        0.015658367 = weight(_text_:of in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015658367 = score(doc=1331,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 1331, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1331)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.8, S.1615-1626

0.0024161388 = product of:
  0.007248416 = sum of:
    0.007248416 = product of:
      0.014496832 = sum of:
        0.014496832 = weight(_text_:of in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014496832 = score(doc=3760,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.0024161388 = product of:
  0.007248416 = sum of:
    0.007248416 = product of:
      0.014496832 = sum of:
        0.014496832 = weight(_text_:of in 4015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014496832 = score(doc=4015,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 4015, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4015)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.158-167

0.0024161388 = product of:
  0.007248416 = sum of:
    0.007248416 = product of:
      0.014496832 = sum of:
        0.014496832 = weight(_text_:of in 4225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014496832 = score(doc=4225,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 4225, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

National governments would like to preside over an expanding and increasingly high-impact science system but are these two goals largely independent or closely linked? This article investigates the relationship between changes in the share of the world's scientific output and changes in relative citation impact for 2.6 million articles from 26 fields in the 25 countries with the most Scopus-indexed journal articles from 1996 to 2015. There is a negative correlation between expansion and relative citation impact, but their relationship varies. China, Spain, Australia, and Poland were successful overall across the 26 fields, expanding both their share of the world's output and its relative citation impact, whereas Japan, France, Sweden, and Israel had decreased shares and relative citation impact. In contrast, the USA, UK, Germany, Italy, Russia, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland, and Denmark all enjoyed increased relative citation impact despite a declining share of publications. Finally, India, South Korea, Brazil, Taiwan, and Turkey all experienced sustained expansion but a recent fall in relative citation impact. These results may partly reflect changes in the coverage of Scopus and the selection of fields.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.5, S.720-727

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 1681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=1681,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 1681, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The graph structures of three national university publicly indexable Webs from Australia, New Zealand, and the UK were analyzed. Strong scale-free regularities for page indegrees, outdegrees, and connected component sizes were in evidence, resulting in power laws similar to those previously identified for individual university Web sites and for the AItaVista-indexed Web. Anomalies were also discovered in most distributions and were tracked down to root causes. As a result, resource driven Web sites and automatically generated pages were identified as representing a significant break from the assumptions of previous power law models. It follows that attempts to track average Web linking behavior would benefit from using techniques to minimize or eliminate the impact of such anomalies.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.8, S.706-712

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=5906,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this article Web issue analysis is introduced as a new technique to investigate an issue as reflected on the Web. The issue chosen, integrated water resource management (IWRM), is a United Nations-initiated paradigm for managing water resources in an international context, particularly in developing nations. As with many international governmental initiatives, there is a considerable body of online information about it: 41.381 hypertext markup language (HTML) pages and 28.735 PDF documents mentioning the issue were downloaded. A page uniform resource locator (URL) and link analysis revealed the international and sectoral spread of IWRM. A noun and noun phrase occurrence analysis was used to identify the issues most commonly discussed, revealing some unexpected topics such as private sector and economic growth. Although the complexity of the methods required to produce meaningful statistics from the data is disadvantageous to easy interpretation, it was still possible to produce data that could be subject to a reasonably intuitive interpretation. Hence Web issue analysis is claimed to be a useful new technique for information science.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.10, S.1303-1314

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 1004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=1004,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 1004, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1004)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.8, S.1608-1617

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 3055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=3055,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 3055, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3055)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Medical research is highly funded and often expensive and so is particularly important to evaluate effectively. Nevertheless, citation counts may accrue too slowly for use in some formal and informal evaluations. It is therefore important to investigate whether alternative metrics could be used as substitutes. This article assesses whether one such altmetric, Mendeley readership counts, correlates strongly with citation counts across all medical fields, whether the relationship is stronger if student readers are excluded, and whether they are distributed similarly to citation counts. Based on a sample of 332,975 articles from 2009 in 45 medical fields in Scopus, citation counts correlated strongly (about 0.7; 78% of articles had at least one reader) with Mendeley readership counts (from the new version 1 applications programming interface [API]) in almost all fields, with one minor exception, and the correlations tended to decrease slightly when student readers were excluded. Readership followed either a lognormal or a hooked power law distribution, whereas citations always followed a hooked power law, showing that the two may have underlying differences.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.8, S.1962-1972

0.0022056228 = product of:
  0.006616868 = sum of:
    0.006616868 = product of:
      0.013233736 = sum of:
        0.013233736 = weight(_text_:of in 1658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013233736 = score(doc=1658,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 1658, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1658)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that counting citations from books can help scholarly impact assessment and that Google Books (GB) is a useful source of such citation counts, despite its lack of a public citation index. Searching GB for citations produces approximate matches, however, and so its raw results need time-consuming human filtering. In response, this article introduces a method to automatically remove false and irrelevant matches from GB citation searches in addition to introducing refinements to a previous GB manual citation extraction method. The method was evaluated by manual checking of sampled GB results and comparing citations to about 14,500 monographs in the Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index (BKCI) against automatically extracted citations from GB across 24 subject areas. GB citations were 103% to 137% as numerous as BKCI citations in the humanities, except for tourism (72%) and linguistics (91%), 46% to 85% in social sciences, but only 8% to 53% in the sciences. In all cases, however, GB had substantially more citing books than did BKCI, with BKCI's results coming predominantly from journal articles. Moderate correlations between the GB and BKCI citation counts in social sciences and humanities, with most BKCI results coming from journal articles rather than books, suggests that they could measure the different aspects of impact, however.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.2, S.309-320

0.0022056228 = product of:
  0.006616868 = sum of:
    0.006616868 = product of:
      0.013233736 = sum of:
        0.013233736 = weight(_text_:of in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013233736 = score(doc=3317,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.48-61

0.0022056228 = product of:
  0.006616868 = sum of:
    0.006616868 = product of:
      0.013233736 = sum of:
        0.013233736 = weight(_text_:of in 5948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013233736 = score(doc=5948,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 5948, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5948)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Efforts to combat continuing gender inequalities in academia need to be informed by evidence about where differences occur. Citations are relevant as potential evidence in appointment and promotion decisions, but it is unclear whether there have been historical gender differences in average citation impact that might explain the current shortfall of senior female academics. This study investigates the evolution of gender differences in citation impact 1996-2018 for six million articles from seven large English-speaking nations: Australia, Canada, Ireland, Jamaica, New Zealand, UK, and the USA. The results show that a small female citation advantage has been the norm over time for all these countries except the USA, where there has been no practical difference. The female citation advantage is largest, and statistically significant in most years, for Australia and the UK. This suggests that any academic bias against citing female-authored research cannot explain current employment inequalities. Nevertheless, comparisons using recent citation data, or avoiding it altogether, during appointments or promotion may disadvantage females in some countries by underestimating the likely greater impact of their work, especially in the long term.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.8, S.979-990

0.0022056228 = product of:
  0.006616868 = sum of:
    0.006616868 = product of:
      0.013233736 = sum of:
        0.013233736 = weight(_text_:of in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013233736 = score(doc=947,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 947, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=947)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Altmetrics are web-based quantitative impact or attention indicators for academic articles that have been proposed to supplement citation counts. This article reports the first assessment of the extent to which mature altmetrics from Altmetric.com and Mendeley associate with individual article quality scores. It exploits expert norm-referenced peer review scores from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 for 67,030+ journal articles in all fields 2014-2017/2018, split into 34 broadly field-based Units of Assessment (UoAs). Altmetrics correlated more strongly with research quality than previously found, although less strongly than raw and field normalized Scopus citation counts. Surprisingly, field normalizing citation counts can reduce their strength as a quality indicator for articles in a single field. For most UoAs, Mendeley reader counts are the best altmetric (e.g., three Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.5), tweet counts are also a moderate strength indicator in eight UoAs (Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.3), ahead of news (eight correlations above 0.3, but generally weaker), blogs (five correlations above 0.3), and Facebook (three correlations above 0.3) citations, at least in the United Kingdom. In general, altmetrics are the strongest indicators of research quality in the health and physical sciences and weakest in the arts and humanities.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.5, S.582-593

0.001972769 = product of:
  0.0059183068 = sum of:
    0.0059183068 = product of:
      0.0118366135 = sum of:
        0.0118366135 = weight(_text_:of in 2190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0118366135 = score(doc=2190,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 2190, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2190)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although there is evidence that counting the readers of an article in the social reference site, Mendeley, may help to capture its research impact, the extent to which this is true for different scientific fields is unknown. In this study, we compare Mendeley readership counts with citations for different social sciences and humanities disciplines. The overall correlation between Mendeley readership counts and citations for the social sciences was higher than for the humanities. Low and medium correlations between Mendeley bookmarks and citation counts in all the investigated disciplines suggest that these measures reflect different aspects of research impact. Mendeley data were also used to discover patterns of information flow between scientific fields. Comparing information flows based on Mendeley bookmarking data and cross-disciplinary citation analysis for the disciplines revealed substantial similarities and some differences. Thus, the evidence from this study suggests that Mendeley readership data could be used to help capture knowledge transfer across scientific disciplines, especially for people that read but do not author articles, as well as giving impact evidence at an earlier stage than is possible with citation counts.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.8, S.1627-1638

0.001972769 = product of:
  0.0059183068 = sum of:
    0.0059183068 = product of:
      0.0118366135 = sum of:
        0.0118366135 = weight(_text_:of in 3349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0118366135 = score(doc=3349,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 3349, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3349)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The large multidisciplinary academic social website ResearchGate aims to help academics to connect with each other and to publicize their work. Despite its popularity, little is known about the age and discipline of the articles uploaded and viewed in the site and whether publication statistics from the site could be useful impact indicators. In response, this article assesses samples of ResearchGate articles uploaded at specific dates, comparing their views in the site to their Mendeley readers and Scopus-indexed citations. This analysis shows that ResearchGate is dominated by recent articles, which attract about three times as many views as older articles. ResearchGate has uneven coverage of scholarship, with the arts and humanities, health professions, and decision sciences poorly represented and some fields receiving twice as many views per article as others. View counts for uploaded articles have low to moderate positive correlations with both Scopus citations and Mendeley readers, which is consistent with them tending to reflect a wider audience than Scopus-publishing scholars. Hence, for articles uploaded to the site, view counts may give a genuinely new audience indicator.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.2, S.468-479

0.0019529418 = product of:
  0.005858825 = sum of:
    0.005858825 = product of:
      0.01171765 = sum of:
        0.01171765 = weight(_text_:of in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01171765 = score(doc=364,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

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

0.0017084682 = product of:
  0.0051254043 = sum of:
    0.0051254043 = product of:
      0.010250809 = sum of:
        0.010250809 = weight(_text_:of in 5952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010250809 = score(doc=5952,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.1496253 = fieldWeight in 5952, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Research collaboration is promoted by governments and research funders, but if the relative prevalence and merits of collaboration vary internationally then different national and disciplinary strategies may be needed to promote it. This study compares the team size and field normalized citation impact of research across all 27 Scopus broad fields in the 10 countries with the most journal articles indexed in Scopus 2008-2012. The results show that team size varies substantially by discipline and country, with Japan (4.2) having two-thirds more authors per article than the United Kingdom (2.5). Solo authorship is rare in China (4%) but common in the United Kingdom (27%). While increasing team size associates with higher citation impact in almost all countries and fields, this association is much weaker in China than elsewhere. There are also field differences in the association between citation impact and collaboration. For example, larger team sizes in the Business, Management & Accounting category do not seem to associate with greater research impact, and for China and India, solo authorship associates with higher citation impact in this field. Overall, there are substantial international and field differences in the extent to which researchers collaborate and the extent to which collaboration associates with higher citation impact.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.8, S.968-978