-
Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? : Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals (2016)
0.02
0.01861422 = product of:
0.10703176 = sum of:
0.015522547 = product of:
0.031045094 = sum of:
0.031045094 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031045094 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10505787 = queryWeight, product of:
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.031703662 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031703662 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10616633 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
0.031045094 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031045094 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10505787 = queryWeight, product of:
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
0.028760463 = sum of:
0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0094278185 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
0.019332644 = weight(_text_:29 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019332644 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
0.17391305 = coord(4/23)
- Date
- 27.12.2015 11:29:37
- Field
- Bibliothekswesen
Informationswissenschaft
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.1, S.191-199
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Patent citation analysis with Google (2017)
0.00
9.7151217E-4 = product of:
0.01117239 = sum of:
0.0039282576 = product of:
0.007856515 = sum of:
0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007856515 = score(doc=3317,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0072441325 = product of:
0.014488265 = sum of:
0.014488265 = weight(_text_:international in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014488265 = score(doc=3317,freq=2.0), product of:
0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.08695652 = coord(2/23)
- 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? : An analysis of mendeley readers (2015)
0.00
5.455307E-4 = product of:
0.012547206 = sum of:
0.012547206 = product of:
0.025094412 = sum of:
0.025094412 = weight(_text_:international in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025094412 = score(doc=1850,freq=6.0), product of:
0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.31918767 = fieldWeight in 1850, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1850)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Abstract
- International collaboration tends to result in more highly cited research and, partly as a result of this, many research funding schemes are specifically international in scope. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether this citation advantage is the result of higher quality research or due to other factors, such as a larger audience for the publications. To test whether the apparent advantage of internationally collaborative research may be due to additional interest in articles from the countries of the authors, this article assesses the extent to which the national affiliations of the authors of articles affect the national affiliations of their Mendeley readers. Based on English-language Web of Science articles in 10 fields from science, medicine, social science, and the humanities, the results of statistical models comparing author and reader affiliations suggest that, in most fields, Mendeley users are disproportionately readers of articles authored from within their own country. In addition, there are several cases in which Mendeley users from certain countries tend to ignore articles from specific other countries, although it is not clear whether this reflects national biases or different national specialisms within a field. In conclusion, research funders should not incentivize international collaboration on the basis that it is, in general, higher quality because its higher impact may be primarily due to its larger audience. Moreover, authors should guard against national biases in their reading to select only the best and most relevant publications to inform their research.
-
Sud, P.; Thelwall, M.: Not all international collaboration is beneficial : the Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration (2016)
0.00
4.3642457E-4 = product of:
0.010037765 = sum of:
0.010037765 = product of:
0.02007553 = sum of:
0.02007553 = weight(_text_:international in 3048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02007553 = score(doc=3048,freq=6.0), product of:
0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.25535014 = fieldWeight in 3048, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3048)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- 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)
0.00
4.1649418E-4 = product of:
0.009579366 = sum of:
0.009579366 = product of:
0.019158732 = sum of:
0.019158732 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019158732 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = 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)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.00
4.1649418E-4 = product of:
0.009579366 = sum of:
0.009579366 = product of:
0.019158732 = sum of:
0.019158732 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019158732 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = 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)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.00
4.1649418E-4 = product of:
0.009579366 = sum of:
0.009579366 = product of:
0.019158732 = sum of:
0.019158732 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019158732 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = 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)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Are wikipedia citations important evidence of the impact of scholarly articles and books? (2017)
0.00
3.5022903E-4 = product of:
0.008055268 = sum of:
0.008055268 = product of:
0.016110536 = sum of:
0.016110536 = weight(_text_:29 in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016110536 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Date
- 16.11.2017 13:29:45
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.00
3.470785E-4 = product of:
0.007982805 = sum of:
0.007982805 = product of:
0.01596561 = sum of:
0.01596561 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01596561 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = 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)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- 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
3.470785E-4 = product of:
0.007982805 = sum of:
0.007982805 = product of:
0.01596561 = sum of:
0.01596561 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01596561 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = 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)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Rezaie, S.: Assessing the citation impact of books : the role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus (2011)
0.00
3.149623E-4 = product of:
0.0072441325 = sum of:
0.0072441325 = product of:
0.014488265 = sum of:
0.014488265 = weight(_text_:international in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014488265 = score(doc=4920,freq=2.0), product of:
0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- 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.
-
Shema, H.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Thelwall, M.: Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? : Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics (2014)
0.00
2.0495258E-4 = product of:
0.0047139092 = sum of:
0.0047139092 = product of:
0.0094278185 = sum of:
0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0094278185 = score(doc=1258,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Date
- 1. 5.2014 18:06:01
-
Thelwall, M.: Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles : an analysis of 45 fields (2016)
0.00
2.0495258E-4 = product of:
0.0047139092 = sum of:
0.0047139092 = product of:
0.0094278185 = sum of:
0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 3055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0094278185 = score(doc=3055,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 3055, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3055)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- 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.
-
Abrizah, A.; Thelwall, M.: Can the impact of non-Western academic books be measured? : an investigation of Google Books and Google Scholar for Malaysia (2014)
0.00
1.707938E-4 = product of:
0.0039282576 = sum of:
0.0039282576 = product of:
0.007856515 = sum of:
0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007856515 = score(doc=1548,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Abstract
- Citation indicators are increasingly used in book-based disciplines to support peer review in the evaluation of authors and to gauge the prestige of publishers. However, because global citation databases seem to offer weak coverage of books outside the West, it is not clear whether the influence of non-Western books can be assessed with citations. To investigate this, citations were extracted from Google Books and Google Scholar to 1,357 arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS) books published by 5 university presses during 1961-2012 in 1 non-Western nation, Malaysia. A significant minority of the books (23% in Google Books and 37% in Google Scholar, 45% in total) had been cited, with a higher proportion cited if they were older or in English. The combination of Google Books and Google Scholar is therefore recommended, with some provisos, for non-Western countries seeking to differentiate between books with some impact and books with no impact, to identify the highly-cited works or to develop an indicator of academic publisher prestige.
-
Thelwall, M.: Web indicators for research evaluation : a practical guide (2016)
0.00
1.707938E-4 = product of:
0.0039282576 = sum of:
0.0039282576 = product of:
0.007856515 = sum of:
0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007856515 = score(doc=3384,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Isbn
- 978-1-62705917-6
-
Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: How quickly do publications get read? : the evolution of mendeley reader counts for new articles (2018)
0.00
1.707938E-4 = product of:
0.0039282576 = sum of:
0.0039282576 = product of:
0.007856515 = sum of:
0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 4015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007856515 = score(doc=4015,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 4015, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4015)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.158-167
