Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04413954 = product of:
  0.08827908 = sum of:
    0.07272967 = weight(_text_:open in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07272967 = score(doc=586,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20672844 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045906994 = queryNorm
        0.3518126 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.015549411 = product of:
      0.031098822 = sum of:
        0.031098822 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031098822 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16075848 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045906994 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.

0.041296 = product of:
  0.082592 = sum of:
    0.051427644 = weight(_text_:open in 1614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051427644 = score(doc=1614,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20672844 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045906994 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 1614, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1614)
    0.031164357 = product of:
      0.062328715 = sum of:
        0.062328715 = weight(_text_:source in 1614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062328715 = score(doc=1614,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22758624 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045906994 = queryNorm
            0.27386856 = fieldWeight in 1614, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1614)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Open-access online publication has made available an increasingly wide range of document types for scientometric analysis. In this article, we focus on citations in online presentations, seeking evidence of their value as nontraditional indicators of research impact. For this purpose, we searched for online PowerPoint files mentioning any one of 1,807 ISI-indexed journals in ten science and ten social science disciplines. We also manually classified 1,378 online PowerPoint citations to journals in eight additional science and social science disciplines. The results showed that very few journals were cited frequently enough in online PowerPoint files to make impact assessment worthwhile, with the main exceptions being popular magazines like Scientific American and Harvard Business Review. Surprisingly, however, there was little difference overall in the number of PowerPoint citations to science and to the social sciences, and also in the proportion representing traditional impact (about 60%) and wider impact (about 15%). It seems that the main scientometric value for online presentations may be in tracking the popularization of research, or for comparing the impact of whole journals rather than individual articles.

0.018698614 = product of:
  0.07479446 = sum of:
    0.07479446 = product of:
      0.14958891 = sum of:
        0.14958891 = weight(_text_:source in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14958891 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22758624 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045906994 = queryNorm
            0.6572845 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.012856911 = product of:
  0.051427644 = sum of:
    0.051427644 = weight(_text_:open in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051427644 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20672844 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045906994 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We use a new data gathering method, "Web/URL citation," Web/URL and Google Scholar to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, and education) based upon a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 open access (OA) journals published in 2001. A Web/URL citation of an online journal article is a Web mention of its title, URL, or both. For each discipline, except psychology, we found significant correlations between Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI, here: ISI) citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations. Google Scholar citations correlated more highly with ISI citations than did Google Web/URL citations, indicating that the Web/URL method measures a broader type of citation phenomenon. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines, suggesting that Google Scholar is more comprehensive for social sciences and perhaps also when conference articles are valued and published online. We also found large disciplinary differences in the percentage overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citation sources. Finally, although we found many significant trends, there were also numerous exceptions, suggesting that replacing traditional citation sources with the Web or Google Scholar for research impact calculations would be problematic.

0.011018264 = product of:
  0.044073056 = sum of:
    0.044073056 = product of:
      0.08814611 = sum of:
        0.08814611 = weight(_text_:source in 6116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08814611 = score(doc=6116,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22758624 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045906994 = queryNorm
            0.38730863 = fieldWeight in 6116, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Broad issue scanning is the task of identifying important public debates arising in a given broad issue; really simple syndication (RSS) feeds are a natural information source for investigating broad issues. RSS, as originally conceived, is a method for publishing timely and concise information on the Internet, for example, about the main stories in a news site or the latest postings in a blog. RSS feeds are potentially a nonintrusive source of high-quality data about public opinion: Monitoring a large number may allow quantitative methods to extract information relevant to a given need. In this article we describe an RSS feed-based coword frequency method to identify bursts of discussion relevant to a given broad issue. A case study of public science concerns is used to demonstrate the method and assess the suitability of raw RSS feeds for broad issue scanning (i.e., without data cleansing). An attempt to identify genuine science concern debates from the corpus through investigating the top 1,000 "burst" words found only two genuine debates, however. The low success rate was mainly caused by a few pathological feeds that dominated the results and obscured any significant debates. The results point to the need to develop effective data cleansing procedures for RSS feeds, particularly if there is not a large quantity of discussion about the broad issue, and a range of potential techniques is suggested. Finally, the analysis confirmed that the time series information generated by real-time monitoring of RSS feeds could usefully illustrate the evolution of new debates relevant to a broad issue.

0.011018264 = product of:
  0.044073056 = sum of:
    0.044073056 = product of:
      0.08814611 = sum of:
        0.08814611 = weight(_text_:source in 2383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08814611 = score(doc=2383,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22758624 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045906994 = queryNorm
            0.38730863 = fieldWeight in 2383, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2383)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The impact of published academic research in the sciences and social sciences, when measured, is commonly estimated by counting citations from journal articles. The Web has now introduced new potential sources of quantitative data online that could be used to measure aspects of research impact. In this article we assess the extent to which citations from online syllabuses could be a valuable source of evidence about the educational utility of research. An analysis of online syllabus citations to 70,700 articles published in 2003 in the journals of 12 subjects indicates that online syllabus citations were sufficiently numerous to be a useful impact indictor in some social sciences, including political science and information and library science, but not in others, nor in any sciences. This result was consistent with current social science research having, in general, more educational value than current science research. Moreover, articles frequently cited in online syllabuses were not necessarily highly cited by other articles. Hence it seems that online syllabus citations provide a valuable additional source of evidence about the impact of journals, scholars, and research articles in some social sciences.

0.010907525 = product of:
  0.0436301 = sum of:
    0.0436301 = product of:
      0.0872602 = sum of:
        0.0872602 = weight(_text_:source in 1969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0872602 = score(doc=1969,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22758624 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045906994 = queryNorm
            0.38341597 = fieldWeight in 1969, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1969)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

New mass publishing genres, such as blogs and personal home pages provide a rich source of social data that is yet to be fully exploited by the social sciences and humanities. Information-centered research (ICR) not only provides a genuinely new and useful information science research model for this type of data, but can also contribute to the emerging e-research infrastructure. Nevertheless, ICR should not be conducted on a purely abstract level, but should relate to potentially relevant problems.

0.009349307 = product of:
  0.03739723 = sum of:
    0.03739723 = product of:
      0.07479446 = sum of:
        0.07479446 = weight(_text_:source in 4474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07479446 = score(doc=4474,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22758624 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045906994 = queryNorm
            0.32864225 = fieldWeight in 4474, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4474)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

There has been much recent interest in extracting information from collections of Web links. One tool that has been used is Ingwersen's Web impact factor. It has been demonstrated that several versions of this metric can produce results that correlate with research ratings of British universities showing that, despite being a measure of a purely Internet phenomenon, the results are susceptible to a wider interpretation. This paper addresses the question of which is the best possible domain to count backlinks from, if research is the focus of interest. WIFs for British universities calculated from several different source domains are compared, primarily the .edu, .ac.uk and .uk domains, and the entire Web. The results show that all four areas produce WIFs that correlate strongly with research ratings, but that none produce incontestably superior figures. It was also found that the WIF was less able to differentiate in more homogeneous subsets of universities, although positive results are still possible.

0.0077910894 = product of:
  0.031164357 = sum of:
    0.031164357 = product of:
      0.062328715 = sum of:
        0.062328715 = weight(_text_:source in 978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062328715 = score(doc=978,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22758624 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045906994 = queryNorm
            0.27386856 = fieldWeight in 978, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=978)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

All known previous Web link studies have used the Web page as the primary indivisible source document for counting purposes. Arguments are presented to explain why this is not necessarily optimal and why other alternatives have the potential to produce better results. This is despite the fact that individual Web files are often the only choice if search engines are used for raw data and are the easiest basic Web unit to identify. The central issue is of defining the Web "document": that which should comprise the single indissoluble unit of coherent material. Three alternative heuristics are defined for the educational arena based upon the directory, the domain and the whole university site. These are then compared by implementing them an a set of 108 UK university institutional Web sites under the assumption that a more effective heuristic will tend to produce results that correlate more highly with institutional research productivity. It was discovered that the domain and directory models were able to successfully reduce the impact of anomalous linking behavior between pairs of Web sites, with the latter being the method of choice. Reasons are then given as to why a document model an its own cannot eliminate all anomalies in Web linking behavior. Finally, the results from all models give a clear confirmation of the very strong association between the research productivity of a UK university and the number of incoming links from its peers' Web sites.

0.0077910894 = product of:
  0.031164357 = sum of:
    0.031164357 = product of:
      0.062328715 = sum of:
        0.062328715 = weight(_text_:source in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062328715 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22758624 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045906994 = queryNorm
            0.27386856 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%-5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.

0.0062197642 = product of:
  0.024879057 = sum of:
    0.024879057 = product of:
      0.049758114 = sum of:
        0.049758114 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049758114 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16075848 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045906994 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

0.005497547 = product of:
  0.021990187 = sum of:
    0.021990187 = product of:
      0.043980375 = sum of:
        0.043980375 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043980375 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16075848 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045906994 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.

Date

22. 3.2009 12:43:51