Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

Sud, P.; Thelwall, M.: Not all international collaboration is beneficial : the Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration (2016) 0.04
```
0.036386296 = product of:
  0.10915889 = sum of:
    0.055596065 = weight(_text_:united in 3048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055596065 = score(doc=3048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.2479343 = fieldWeight in 3048, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3048)
    0.053562824 = weight(_text_:states in 3048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053562824 = score(doc=3048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.24335839 = fieldWeight in 3048, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3048)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
```
Abstract

This study aims to identify the way researchers collaborate with other researchers in the course of the scientific research life cycle and provide information to the designers of e-Science and e-Research implementations. On the basis of in-depth interviews with and on-site observations of 24 scientists and a follow-up focus group interview in the field of bioscience/nanoscience and technology in Korea, we examined scientific collaboration using the framework of the scientific research life cycle. We attempt to explain the major motiBiochemistry is a highly funded research area that is typified by large research teams and is important for many areas of the life sciences. This article investigates the citation impact and Mendeley readership impact of biochemistry research from 2011 in the Web of Science according to the type of collaboration involved. Negative binomial regression models are used that incorporate, for the first time, the inclusion of specific countries within a team. The results show that, holding other factors constant, larger teams robustly associate with higher impact research, but including additional departments has no effect and adding extra institutions tends to reduce the impact of research. Although international collaboration is apparently not advantageous in general, collaboration with the United States, and perhaps also with some other countries, seems to increase impact. In contrast, collaborations with some other nations seems to decrease impact, although both findings could be due to factors such as differing national proportions of excellent researchers. As a methodological implication, simpler statistical models would find international collaboration to be generally beneficial and so it is important to take into account specific countries when examining collaboration.t only in the beginning phase of the cycle. For communication and information-sharing practices, scientists continue to favor traditional means of communication for security reasons. Barriers to collaboration throughout the phases included different priorities, competitive tensions, and a hierarchical culture among collaborators, whereas credit sharing was a barrier in the research product phase.
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.03
```
0.033213437 = product of:
  0.09964031 = sum of:
    0.083394095 = weight(_text_:united in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083394095 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
    0.016246213 = product of:
      0.032492425 = sum of:
        0.032492425 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032492425 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13996868 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039970156 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
```
Abstract

This article introduces a new source of evidence of the value of medical-related research: citations from clinical guidelines. These give evidence that research findings have been used to inform the day-to-day practice of medical staff. To identify whether citations from guidelines can give different information from that of traditional citation counts, this article assesses the extent to which references in clinical guidelines tend to be highly cited in the academic literature and highly read in Mendeley. Using evidence from the United Kingdom, references associated with the UK's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines tended to be substantially more cited than comparable articles, unless they had been published in the most recent 3 years. Citation counts also seemed to be stronger indicators than Mendeley readership altmetrics. Hence, although presence in guidelines may be particularly useful to highlight the contributions of recently published articles, for older articles citation counts may already be sufficient to recognize their contributions to health in society.

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Rezaie, S.: Assessing the citation impact of books : the role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus (2011) 0.01
```
0.011582514 = product of:
  0.06949508 = sum of:
    0.06949508 = weight(_text_:united in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06949508 = score(doc=4920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
```
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.

Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.00

0.002707702 = product of:
  0.016246213 = sum of:
    0.016246213 = product of:
      0.032492425 = sum of:
        0.032492425 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032492425 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13996868 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039970156 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date: 16.11.2016 11:07:22

Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.00

0.002707702 = product of:
  0.016246213 = sum of:
    0.016246213 = product of:
      0.032492425 = sum of:
        0.032492425 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032492425 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13996868 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039970156 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date: 28. 7.2018 10:00:22

Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.00

0.0022564186 = product of:
  0.0135385115 = sum of:
    0.0135385115 = product of:
      0.027077023 = sum of:
        0.027077023 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027077023 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13996868 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039970156 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date: 6. 4.2012 18:16:22

Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017) 0.00

0.0022564186 = product of:
  0.0135385115 = sum of:
    0.0135385115 = product of:
      0.027077023 = sum of:
        0.027077023 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027077023 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13996868 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039970156 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date: 20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors