-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.04
0.040207822 = product of:
0.080415644 = sum of:
0.013748205 = weight(_text_:information in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013748205 = score(doc=2856,freq=4.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
0.06666744 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038683902 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = 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(2/4)
- 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
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.960-966
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.04
0.03833617 = product of:
0.07667234 = sum of:
0.011456838 = weight(_text_:information in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011456838 = score(doc=4200,freq=4.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
0.0652155 = sum of:
0.03297891 = weight(_text_:technology in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03297891 = score(doc=4200,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
0.032236587 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032236587 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:29:23
- Footnote
- Vgl. auch das Erratum in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.419
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2544-2558
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011)
0.04
0.038194444 = product of:
0.07638889 = sum of:
0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00972145 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
0.06666744 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038683902 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, 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=4345)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:27:06
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.406-418
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.04
0.038194444 = product of:
0.07638889 = sum of:
0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00972145 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
0.06666744 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038683902 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = 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(2/4)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3036-3050
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.04
0.038194444 = product of:
0.07638889 = sum of:
0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00972145 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
0.06666744 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038683902 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = 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(2/4)
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.8, S.959-973
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.03
0.033506516 = product of:
0.06701303 = sum of:
0.011456838 = weight(_text_:information in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011456838 = score(doc=57,freq=4.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
0.055556197 = sum of:
0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02331961 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
0.032236587 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032236587 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = 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(2/4)
- Abstract
- Webometric network analyses have been used to map the connectivity of groups of websites to identify clusters, important sites or overall structure. Such analyses have mainly been based upon hyperlink counts, the number of hyperlinks between a pair of websites, although some have used title mentions or URL citations instead. The ability to automatically gather hyperlink counts from Yahoo! ceased in April 2011 and the ability to manually gather such counts was due to cease by early 2012, creating a need for alternatives. This article assesses URL citations and title mentions as possible replacements for hyperlinks in both binary and weighted direct link and co-inlink network diagrams. It also assesses three different types of data for the network connections: hit count estimates, counts of matching URLs, and filtered counts of matching URLs. Results from analyses of U.S. library and information science departments and U.K. universities give evidence that metrics based upon URLs or titles can be appropriate replacements for metrics based upon hyperlinks for both binary and weighted networks, although filtered counts of matching URLs are necessary to give the best results for co-title mention and co-URL citation network diagrams.
- 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
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: News stories as evidence for research? : BBC citations from articles, Books, and Wikipedia (2017)
0.02
0.016345935 = product of:
0.03269187 = sum of:
0.016202414 = weight(_text_:information in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016202414 = score(doc=3760,freq=8.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
0.016489455 = product of:
0.03297891 = sum of:
0.03297891 = weight(_text_:technology in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03297891 = score(doc=3760,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.: Scholars on soap boxes : science communication and dissemination in TED videos (2013)
0.02
0.015710408 = product of:
0.031420816 = sum of:
0.008101207 = weight(_text_:information in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008101207 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
0.02331961 = product of:
0.04663922 = sum of:
0.04663922 = weight(_text_:technology in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04663922 = score(doc=678,freq=8.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.32906836 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Online videos provide a novel, and often interactive, platform for the popularization of science. One successful collection is hosted on the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) website. This study uses a range of bibliometric (citation) and webometric (usage and bookmarking) indicators to examine TED videos in order to provide insights into the type and scope of their impact. The results suggest that TED Talks impact primarily the public sphere, with about three-quarters of a billion total views, rather than the academic realm. Differences were found among broad disciplinary areas, with art and design videos having generally lower levels of impact but science and technology videos generating otherwise average impact for TED. Many of the metrics were only loosely related, but there was a general consensus about the most popular videos as measured through views or comments on YouTube and the TED site. Moreover, most videos were found in at least one online syllabus and videos in online syllabi tended to be more viewed, discussed, and blogged. Less-liked videos generated more discussion, although this may be because they are more controversial. Science and technology videos presented by academics were more liked than those by nonacademics, showing that academics are not disadvantaged in this new media environment.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.663-674
-
Orduna-Malea, E.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Web citations in patents : evidence of technological impact? (2017)
0.01
0.0147544 = product of:
0.0295088 = sum of:
0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00972145 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
0.019787349 = product of:
0.039574698 = sum of:
0.039574698 = weight(_text_:technology in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039574698 = score(doc=3764,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.2792238 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Patents sometimes cite webpages either as general background to the problem being addressed or to identify prior publications that limit the scope of the patent granted. Counts of the number of patents citing an organization's website may therefore provide an indicator of its technological capacity or relevance. This article introduces methods to extract URL citations from patents and evaluates the usefulness of counts of patent web citations as a technology indicator. An analysis of patents citing 200 US universities or 177 UK universities found computer science and engineering departments to be frequently cited, as well as research-related webpages, such as Wikipedia, YouTube, or the Internet Archive. Overall, however, patent URL citations seem to be frequent enough to be useful for ranking major US and the top few UK universities if popular hosted subdomains are filtered out, but the hit count estimates on the first search engine results page should not be relied upon for accuracy.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.1967-1974
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Rezaie, S.: Can the impact of scholarly images be assessed online? : an exploratory study using image identification technology (2010)
0.01
0.013973147 = product of:
0.027946293 = sum of:
0.011456838 = weight(_text_:information in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011456838 = score(doc=3966,freq=4.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
0.016489455 = product of:
0.03297891 = sum of:
0.03297891 = weight(_text_:technology in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03297891 = score(doc=3966,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The web contains a huge number of digital pictures. For scholars publishing such images it is important to know how well used their images are, but no method seems to have been developed for monitoring the value of academic images. In particular, can the impact of scientific or artistic images be assessed through identifying images copied or reused on the Internet? This article explores a case study of 260 NASA images to investigate whether the TinEye search engine could theoretically help to provide this information. The results show that the selected pictures had a median of 11 online copies each. However, a classification of 210 of these copies reveals that only 1.4% were explicitly used in academic publications, reflecting research impact, and the majority of the NASA pictures were used for informal scholarly (or educational) communication (37%). Additional analyses of world famous paintings and scientific images about pathology and molecular structures suggest that image contents are important for the type and extent of image use. Although it is reasonable to use statistics derived from TinEye for assessing image reuse value, the extent of its image indexing is not known.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.9, S.1734-1744
-
Mohammadi, E.; Thelwall, M.; Haustein, S.; Larivière, V.: Who reads research articles? : an altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories (2015)
0.01
0.013973147 = product of:
0.027946293 = sum of:
0.011456838 = weight(_text_:information in 2162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011456838 = score(doc=2162,freq=4.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2162, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2162)
0.016489455 = product of:
0.03297891 = sum of:
0.03297891 = weight(_text_:technology in 2162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03297891 = score(doc=2162,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 2162, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2162)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Little detailed information is known about who reads research articles and the contexts in which research articles are read. Using data about people who register in Mendeley as readers of articles, this article explores different types of users of Clinical Medicine, Engineering and Technology, Social Science, Physics, and Chemistry articles inside and outside academia. The majority of readers for all disciplines were PhD students, postgraduates, and postdocs but other types of academics were also represented. In addition, many Clinical Medicine articles were read by medical professionals. The highest correlations between citations and Mendeley readership counts were found for types of users who often authored academic articles, except for associate professors in some sub-disciplines. This suggests that Mendeley readership can reflect usage similar to traditional citation impact if the data are restricted to readers who are also authors without the delay of impact measured by citation counts. At the same time, Mendeley statistics can also reveal the hidden impact of some research articles, such as educational value for nonauthor users inside academia or the impact of research articles on practice for readers outside academia.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.9, S.1832-1846
-
Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? : Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals (2016)
0.01
0.013869986 = product of:
0.027739972 = sum of:
0.013748205 = weight(_text_:information in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013748205 = score(doc=2495,freq=4.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
0.013991767 = product of:
0.027983533 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- In theory, articles can attract readers on the social reference sharing site Mendeley before they can attract citations, so Mendeley altmetrics could provide early indications of article impact. This article investigates the influence of time on the number of Mendeley readers of an article through a theoretical discussion and an investigation into the relationship between counts of readers of, and citations to, 4 general library and information science (LIS) journals. For this discipline, it takes about 7 years for articles to attract as many Scopus citations as Mendeley readers, and after this the Spearman correlation between readers and citers is stable at about 0.6 for all years. This suggests that Mendeley readership counts may be useful impact indicators for both newer and older articles. The lack of dates for individual Mendeley article readers and an unknown bias toward more recent articles mean that readership data should be normalized individually by year, however, before making any comparisons between articles published in different years.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.1, S.191-199
-
Mohammadi , E.; Thelwall, M.: Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities : research evaluation and knowledge flows (2014)
0.01
0.012845755 = product of:
0.02569151 = sum of:
0.0140317045 = weight(_text_:information in 2190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0140317045 = score(doc=2190,freq=6.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2190, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2190)
0.011659805 = product of:
0.02331961 = sum of:
0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 2190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02331961 = score(doc=2190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2190, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2190)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: SlideShare presentations, citations, users, and trends : a professional site with academic and educational uses (2017)
0.01
0.012845755 = product of:
0.02569151 = sum of:
0.0140317045 = weight(_text_:information in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0140317045 = score(doc=3766,freq=6.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
0.011659805 = product of:
0.02331961 = sum of:
0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02331961 = score(doc=3766,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- SlideShare is a free social website that aims to help users distribute and find presentations. Owned by LinkedIn since 2012, it targets a professional audience but may give value to scholarship through creating a long-term record of the content of talks. This article tests this hypothesis by analyzing sets of general and scholarly related SlideShare documents using content and citation analysis and popularity statistics reported on the site. The results suggest that academics, students, and teachers are a minority of SlideShare uploaders, especially since 2010, with most documents not being directly related to scholarship or teaching. About two thirds of uploaded SlideShare documents are presentation slides, with the remainder often being files associated with presentations or video recordings of talks. SlideShare is therefore a presentation-centered site with a predominantly professional user base. Although a minority of the uploaded SlideShare documents are cited by, or cite, academic publications, probably too few articles are cited by SlideShare to consider extracting SlideShare citations for research evaluation. Nevertheless, scholars should consider SlideShare to be a potential source of academic and nonacademic information, particularly in library and information science, education, and business.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.1989-2003
-
Sud, P.; Thelwall, M.: Not all international collaboration is beneficial : the Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration (2016)
0.01
0.012208464 = product of:
0.024416927 = sum of:
0.011225363 = weight(_text_:information in 3048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011225363 = score(doc=3048,freq=6.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 3048, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3048)
0.013191565 = product of:
0.02638313 = sum of:
0.02638313 = weight(_text_:technology in 3048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02638313 = score(doc=3048,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.1861492 = fieldWeight in 3048, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3048)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.8, S.1849-1857
-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.01
0.012109751 = product of:
0.024219502 = sum of:
0.008101207 = weight(_text_:information in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008101207 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
0.016118294 = product of:
0.032236587 = sum of:
0.032236587 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032236587 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.6, S.614-635
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.01
0.012109751 = product of:
0.024219502 = sum of:
0.008101207 = weight(_text_:information in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008101207 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
0.016118294 = product of:
0.032236587 = sum of:
0.032236587 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032236587 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = 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(2/4)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.2, S.174-183
-
Thelwall, M.; Wilkinson, D.: Public dialogs in social network sites : What is their purpose? (2010)
0.01
0.011856608 = product of:
0.023713216 = sum of:
0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 3327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00972145 = score(doc=3327,freq=2.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3327, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3327)
0.013991767 = product of:
0.027983533 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 3327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=3327,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3327, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3327)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.2, S.392-404
-
Thelwall, M.; Klitkou, A.; Verbeek, A.; Stuart, D.; Vincent, C.: Policy-relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields (2010)
0.01
0.011856608 = product of:
0.023713216 = sum of:
0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00972145 = score(doc=3574,freq=2.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
0.013991767 = product of:
0.027983533 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=3574,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1464-1475
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology (2013)
0.01
0.011856608 = product of:
0.023713216 = sum of:
0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00972145 = score(doc=737,freq=2.0), product of:
0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
0.013991767 = product of:
0.027983533 = sum of:
0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027983533 = score(doc=737,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.047586527 = queryNorm
0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.1055-1064
