Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Shema, H.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Thelwall, M.: How is research blogged? : A content analysis approach (2015) 0.02
    0.020299202 = product of:
      0.040598404 = sum of:
        0.040598404 = product of:
          0.08119681 = sum of:
            0.08119681 = weight(_text_:90 in 1863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08119681 = score(doc=1863,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050854117 = queryNorm
                0.29699144 = fieldWeight in 1863, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1863)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Blogs that cite academic articles have emerged as a potential source of alternative impact metrics for the visibility of the blogged articles. Nevertheless, to evaluate more fully the value of blog citations, it is necessary to investigate whether research blogs focus on particular types of articles or give new perspectives on scientific discourse. Therefore, we studied the characteristics of peer-reviewed references in blogs and the typical content of blog posts to gain insight into bloggers' motivations. The sample consisted of 391 blog posts from 2010 to 2012 in Researchblogging.org's health category. The bloggers mostly cited recent research articles or reviews from top multidisciplinary and general medical journals. Using content analysis methods, we created a general classification scheme for blog post content with 10 major topic categories, each with several subcategories. The results suggest that health research bloggers rarely self-cite and that the vast majority of their blog posts (90%) include a general discussion of the issue covered in the article, with more than one quarter providing health-related advice based on the article(s) covered. These factors suggest a genuine attempt to engage with a wider, nonacademic audience. Nevertheless, almost 30% of the posts included some criticism of the issues being discussed.
  2. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.01
    0.010335046 = product of:
      0.020670092 = sum of:
        0.020670092 = product of:
          0.041340183 = sum of:
            0.041340183 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.041340183 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050854117 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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
    0.010335046 = product of:
      0.020670092 = sum of:
        0.020670092 = product of:
          0.041340183 = sum of:
            0.041340183 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.041340183 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050854117 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    16.11.2016 11:07:22
  4. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.01
    0.010335046 = product of:
      0.020670092 = sum of:
        0.020670092 = product of:
          0.041340183 = sum of:
            0.041340183 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.041340183 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050854117 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    28. 7.2018 10:00:22
  5. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.01
    0.008612539 = product of:
      0.017225077 = sum of:
        0.017225077 = product of:
          0.034450155 = sum of:
            0.034450155 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034450155 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050854117 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    6. 4.2012 18:16:22
  6. Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017) 0.01
    0.008612539 = product of:
      0.017225077 = sum of:
        0.017225077 = product of:
          0.034450155 = sum of:
            0.034450155 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034450155 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050854117 = 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(1/2)
    
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22