Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.04 
    0.040358387 = product of:
  0.080716774 = sum of:
    0.080716774 = sum of:
      0.038392097 = weight(_text_:society in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038392097 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17364666 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05206517 = queryNorm
          0.22109321 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
      0.042324673 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042324673 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18232337 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05206517 = 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)
    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
  2. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.03 
    0.033631988 = product of:
  0.067263976 = sum of:
    0.067263976 = sum of:
      0.031993415 = weight(_text_:society in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031993415 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17364666 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05206517 = queryNorm
          0.18424435 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
      0.03527056 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03527056 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18232337 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05206517 = 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)
    Date
    6. 4.2012 18:16:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.805-816
  3. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.01 
    0.010581168 = product of:
  0.021162337 = sum of:
    0.021162337 = product of:
      0.042324673 = sum of:
        0.042324673 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042324673 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18232337 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206517 = 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 
    0.010581168 = product of:
  0.021162337 = sum of:
    0.021162337 = product of:
      0.042324673 = sum of:
        0.042324673 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042324673 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18232337 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206517 = 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.; Klitkou, A.; Verbeek, A.; Stuart, D.; Vincent, C.: Policy-relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields (2010) 0.01 
    0.009598024 = product of:
  0.019196048 = sum of:
    0.019196048 = product of:
      0.038392097 = sum of:
        0.038392097 = weight(_text_:society in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038392097 = score(doc=3574,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17364666 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206517 = queryNorm
            0.22109321 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1464-1475
  6. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology (2013) 0.01 
    0.009598024 = product of:
  0.019196048 = sum of:
    0.019196048 = product of:
      0.038392097 = sum of:
        0.038392097 = weight(_text_:society in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038392097 = score(doc=737,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17364666 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206517 = queryNorm
            0.22109321 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.1055-1064
  7. Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017) 0.01 
    0.00881764 = product of:
  0.01763528 = sum of:
    0.01763528 = product of:
      0.03527056 = sum of:
        0.03527056 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03527056 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18232337 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206517 = 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
  8. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: ¬A comparison of methods for collecting web citation data for academic organizations (2011) 0.01 
    0.007998354 = product of:
  0.015996708 = sum of:
    0.015996708 = product of:
      0.031993415 = sum of:
        0.031993415 = weight(_text_:society in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031993415 = score(doc=4626,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17364666 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206517 = queryNorm
            0.18424435 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1488-1497
  9. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Rezaie, S.: Assessing the citation impact of books : the role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus (2011) 0.01 
    0.007998354 = product of:
  0.015996708 = sum of:
    0.015996708 = product of:
      0.031993415 = sum of:
        0.031993415 = weight(_text_:society in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031993415 = score(doc=4920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17364666 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206517 = queryNorm
            0.18424435 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2147-2164
  10. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Abdoli, M.: ¬The role of online videos in research communication : a content analysis of YouTube videos cited in academic publications (2012) 0.01 
    0.007998354 = product of:
  0.015996708 = sum of:
    0.015996708 = product of:
      0.031993415 = sum of:
        0.031993415 = weight(_text_:society in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031993415 = score(doc=382,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17364666 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206517 = queryNorm
            0.18424435 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.9, S.1710-1727
  11. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Are wikipedia citations important evidence of the impact of scholarly articles and books? (2017) 0.01 
    0.007998354 = product of:
  0.015996708 = sum of:
    0.015996708 = product of:
      0.031993415 = sum of:
        0.031993415 = weight(_text_:society in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031993415 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17364666 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206517 = queryNorm
            0.18424435 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3351789 = idf(docFreq=4279, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Individual academics and research evaluators often need to assess the value of published research. Although citation counts are a recognized indicator of scholarly impact, alternative data is needed to provide evidence of other types of impact, including within education and wider society. Wikipedia is a logical choice for both of these because the role of a general encyclopaedia is to be an understandable repository of facts about a diverse array of topics and hence it may cite research to support its claims. To test whether Wikipedia could provide new evidence about the impact of scholarly research, this article counted citations to 302,328 articles and 18,735 monographs in English indexed by Scopus in the period 2005 to 2012. The results show that citations from Wikipedia to articles are too rare for most research evaluation purposes, with only 5% of articles being cited in all fields. In contrast, a third of monographs have at least one citation from Wikipedia, with the most in the arts and humanities. Hence, Wikipedia citations can provide extra impact evidence for academic monographs. Nevertheless, the results may be relatively easily manipulated and so Wikipedia is not recommended for evaluations affecting stakeholder interests.

Authors