Search (58 results, page 2 of 3)

0.0021792497 = product of:
  0.013075498 = sum of:
    0.013075498 = weight(_text_:in in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013075498 = score(doc=737,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study investigates a range of metrics available when a nanoscience and nanotechnology article is published to see which metrics correlate more with the number of citations to the article. It also introduces the degree of internationality of journals and references as new metrics for this purpose. The journal impact factor; the impact of references; the internationality of authors, journals, and references; and the number of authors, institutions, and references were all calculated for papers published in nanoscience and nanotechnology journals in the Web of Science from 2007 to 2009. Using a zero-inflated negative binomial regression model on the data set, the impact factor of the publishing journal and the citation impact of the cited references were found to be the most effective determinants of citation counts in all four time periods. In the entire 2007 to 2009 period, apart from journal internationality and author numbers and internationality, all other predictor variables had significant effects on citation counts.

0.0021792497 = product of:
  0.013075498 = sum of:
    0.013075498 = weight(_text_:in in 2313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013075498 = score(doc=2313,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 2313, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2313)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to make an explicit case for the use of data with contextual information as evidence in arts and humanities research evaluations rather than systematic metrics. Design/methodology/approach A survey of the strengths and limitations of citation-based indicators is combined with evidence about existing uses of wider impact data in the arts and humanities, with particular reference to the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework. Findings Data are already used as impact evidence in the arts and humanities but this practice should become more widespread. Practical implications Arts and humanities researchers should be encouraged to think creatively about the kinds of data that they may be able to generate in support of the value of their research and should not rely upon standardised metrics. Originality/value This paper combines practices emerging in the arts and humanities with research evaluation from a scientometric perspective to generate new recommendations.

0.002148769 = product of:
  0.012892614 = sum of:
    0.012892614 = weight(_text_:in in 375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012892614 = score(doc=375,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 375, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=375)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The worldwide span of the microblogging service Twitter provides an opportunity to make international comparisons of trending topics of interest, such as news stories. Previous international comparisons of news interests have tended to use surveys and may bypass topics not well covered in the mainstream media. This study uses 9 months of English-language Tweets from the United Kingdom, United States, India, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia. Based upon the top 50 trending keywords in each country from the 0.5 billion Tweets collected, festivals or religious events are the most common, followed by media events, politics, human interest, and sports. U.S. trending topics have the most interest in the other countries and Indian trending topics the least. Conversely, India is the most interested in other countries' trending topics and the United States the least. This gives evidence of an international hierarchy of perceived importance or relevance with some issues, such as the international interest in U.S. Thanksgiving celebrations, apparently not being directly driven by the media. This hierarchy echoes, and may be caused by, similar news coverage trends. Although the current imbalanced international news coverage does not seem to be out of step with public news interests, the political implication is that the Twitter-using public reflects, and hence seems to implicitly accept, international imbalances in news media agenda setting rather than combating them. This is an issue for those believing that these imbalances make the media too powerful.

0.002148769 = product of:
  0.012892614 = sum of:
    0.012892614 = weight(_text_:in in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012892614 = score(doc=1548,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0019893735 = product of:
  0.01193624 = sum of:
    0.01193624 = weight(_text_:in in 1234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01193624 = score(doc=1234,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 1234, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1234)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Academic social network sites Academia.edu and ResearchGate, and reference sharing sites Mendeley, Bibsonomy, Zotero, and CiteULike, give scholars the ability to publicize their research outputs and connect with each other. With millions of users, these are a significant addition to the scholarly communication and academic information-seeking eco-structure. There is thus a need to understand the role that they play and the changes, if any, that they can make to the dynamics of academic careers. This article investigates attributes of philosophy scholars on Academia.edu, introducing a median-based, time-normalizing method to adjust for time delays in joining the site. In comparison to students, faculty tend to attract more profile views but female philosophers did not attract more profile views than did males, suggesting that academic capital drives philosophy uses of the site more than does friendship and networking. Secondary analyses of law, history, and computer science confirmed the faculty advantage (in terms of higher profile views) except for females in law and females in computer science. There was also a female advantage for both faculty and students in law and computer science as well as for history students. Hence, Academia.edu overall seems to reflect a hybrid of scholarly norms (the faculty advantage) and a female advantage that is suggestive of general social networking norms. Finally, traditional bibliometric measures did not correlate with any Academia.edu metrics for philosophers, perhaps because more senior academics use the site less extensively or because of the range informal scholarly activities that cannot be measured by bibliometric methods.

0.0019893735 = product of:
  0.01193624 = sum of:
    0.01193624 = weight(_text_:in in 4225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01193624 = score(doc=4225,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 4225, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4225)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

National governments would like to preside over an expanding and increasingly high-impact science system but are these two goals largely independent or closely linked? This article investigates the relationship between changes in the share of the world's scientific output and changes in relative citation impact for 2.6 million articles from 26 fields in the 25 countries with the most Scopus-indexed journal articles from 1996 to 2015. There is a negative correlation between expansion and relative citation impact, but their relationship varies. China, Spain, Australia, and Poland were successful overall across the 26 fields, expanding both their share of the world's output and its relative citation impact, whereas Japan, France, Sweden, and Israel had decreased shares and relative citation impact. In contrast, the USA, UK, Germany, Italy, Russia, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland, and Denmark all enjoyed increased relative citation impact despite a declining share of publications. Finally, India, South Korea, Brazil, Taiwan, and Turkey all experienced sustained expansion but a recent fall in relative citation impact. These results may partly reflect changes in the coverage of Scopus and the selection of fields.

0.0019491798 = product of:
  0.011695079 = sum of:
    0.011695079 = weight(_text_:in in 3048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011695079 = score(doc=3048,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 3048, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3048)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study aims to identify the way researchers collaborate with other researchers in the course of the scientific research life cycle and provide information to the designers of e-Science and e-Research implementations. On the basis of in-depth interviews with and on-site observations of 24 scientists and a follow-up focus group interview in the field of bioscience/nanoscience and technology in Korea, we examined scientific collaboration using the framework of the scientific research life cycle. We attempt to explain the major motiBiochemistry is a highly funded research area that is typified by large research teams and is important for many areas of the life sciences. This article investigates the citation impact and Mendeley readership impact of biochemistry research from 2011 in the Web of Science according to the type of collaboration involved. Negative binomial regression models are used that incorporate, for the first time, the inclusion of specific countries within a team. The results show that, holding other factors constant, larger teams robustly associate with higher impact research, but including additional departments has no effect and adding extra institutions tends to reduce the impact of research. Although international collaboration is apparently not advantageous in general, collaboration with the United States, and perhaps also with some other countries, seems to increase impact. In contrast, collaborations with some other nations seems to decrease impact, although both findings could be due to factors such as differing national proportions of excellent researchers. As a methodological implication, simpler statistical models would find international collaboration to be generally beneficial and so it is important to take into account specific countries when examining collaboration.t only in the beginning phase of the cycle. For communication and information-sharing practices, scientists continue to favor traditional means of communication for security reasons. Barriers to collaboration throughout the phases included different priorities, competitive tensions, and a hierarchical culture among collaborators, whereas credit sharing was a barrier in the research product phase.

0.0019491798 = product of:
  0.011695079 = sum of:
    0.011695079 = weight(_text_:in in 3055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011695079 = score(doc=3055,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 3055, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3055)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0018160412 = product of:
  0.010896247 = sum of:
    0.010896247 = weight(_text_:in in 4106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010896247 = score(doc=4106,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 4106, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4106)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The uptake of social network sites (SNSs) has been highly trend-driven, with Friendster, MySpace, and Facebook being successively the most popular. Given that teens are often early adopters of communication technologies, it seems reasonable to assume that the typical user of any particular SNS would change over time, probably becoming older and covering different segments of the population. This article analyzes changes in MySpace self-reported member demographics and behavior from 2007 to 2010 using four large samples of members and focusing on the United States. The results indicate that despite its take-up rate declining, with only about 1 in 10 members being active a year after joining, the dominant (modal) age for active U.S. members remains midadolescence, but has shifted by about 2 years from 15 to 17, and the U.S. dominance of MySpace is shrinking. There also has been a dramatic increase in the median number of Friends for new U.S. members, from 12 to 96-probably due to MySpace's automated Friend Finder. Some factors show little change, however, including the female majority, the 5% minority gay membership, and the approximately 50% private profiles. In addition, there has been an increase in the proportion of Latino/Hispanic U.S. members, suggesting a shifting ethnic profile. Overall, MySpace has surprisingly stable membership demographics and is apparently maintaining its primary youth appeal, perhaps because of its music orientation.

0.0018160412 = product of:
  0.010896247 = sum of:
    0.010896247 = weight(_text_:in in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010896247 = score(doc=4465,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Increasing interdisciplinarity has been a policy objective since the 1990s, promoted by many governments and funding agencies, but the question is: How deeply has this affected the social sciences? Although numerous articles have suggested that research has become more interdisciplinary, yet no study has compared the extent to which the interdisciplinarity of different social science subjects has changed. To address this gap, changes in the level of interdisciplinarity since 1980 are investigated for subjects with many articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), using the percentage of cross-disciplinary citing documents (PCDCD) to evaluate interdisciplinarity. For the 14 SSCI subjects investigated, the median level of interdisciplinarity, as measured using cross-disciplinary citations, declined from 1980 to 1990, but rose sharply between 1990 and 2000, confirming previous research. This increase was not fully matched by an increase in the percentage of articles that were assigned to more than one subject category. Nevertheless, although on average the social sciences have recently become more interdisciplinary, the extent of this change varies substantially from subject to subject. The SSCI subject with the largest increase in interdisciplinarity between 1990 and 2000 was Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) but there is evidence that the level of interdisciplinarity of IS&LS increased less quickly during the first decade of this century.

0.0018160412 = product of:
  0.010896247 = sum of:
    0.010896247 = weight(_text_:in in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010896247 = score(doc=4920,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Citation indictors are increasingly used in some subject areas to support peer review in the evaluation of researchers and departments. Nevertheless, traditional journal-based citation indexes may be inadequate for the citation impact assessment of book-based disciplines. This article examines whether online citations from Google Books and Google Scholar can provide alternative sources of citation evidence. To investigate this, we compared the citation counts to 1,000 books submitted to the 2008 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) from Google Books and Google Scholar with Scopus citations across seven book-based disciplines (archaeology; law; politics and international studies; philosophy; sociology; history; and communication, cultural, and media studies). Google Books and Google Scholar citations to books were 1.4 and 3.2 times more common than were Scopus citations, and their medians were more than twice and three times as high as were Scopus median citations, respectively. This large number of citations is evidence that in book-oriented disciplines in the social sciences, arts, and humanities, online book citations may be sufficiently numerous to support peer review for research evaluation, at least in the United Kingdom.

0.0018160412 = product of:
  0.010896247 = sum of:
    0.010896247 = weight(_text_:in in 4972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010896247 = score(doc=4972,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 4972, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4972)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Sentiment analysis is concerned with the automatic extraction of sentiment-related information from text. Although most sentiment analysis addresses commercial tasks, such as extracting opinions from product reviews, there is increasing interest in the affective dimension of the social web, and Twitter in particular. Most sentiment analysis algorithms are not ideally suited to this task because they exploit indirect indicators of sentiment that can reflect genre or topic instead. Hence, such algorithms used to process social web texts can identify spurious sentiment patterns caused by topics rather than affective phenomena. This article assesses an improved version of the algorithm SentiStrength for sentiment strength detection across the social web that primarily uses direct indications of sentiment. The results from six diverse social web data sets (MySpace, Twitter, YouTube, Digg, Runners World, BBC Forums) indicate that SentiStrength 2 is successful in the sense of performing better than a baseline approach for all data sets in both supervised and unsupervised cases. SentiStrength is not always better than machine-learning approaches that exploit indirect indicators of sentiment, however, and is particularly weaker for positive sentiment in news-related discussions. Overall, the results suggest that, even unsupervised, SentiStrength is robust enough to be applied to a wide variety of different social web contexts.

0.0018160412 = product of:
  0.010896247 = sum of:
    0.010896247 = weight(_text_:in in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010896247 = score(doc=678,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0018160412 = product of:
  0.010896247 = sum of:
    0.010896247 = weight(_text_:in in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010896247 = score(doc=1331,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 1331, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1331)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Some curricula vitae (web CVs) of academics on the web, including homepages and publication lists, link to open-access (OA) articles, resources, abstracts in publishers' websites, or academic discussions, helping to disseminate research. To assess how common such practices are and whether they vary by discipline, gender, and country, the authors conducted a large-scale e-mail survey of astronomy and astrophysics, public health, environmental engineering, and philosophy across 15 European countries and analyzed hyperlinks from web CVs of academics. About 60% of the 2,154 survey responses reported having a web CV or something similar, and there were differences between disciplines, genders, and countries. A follow-up outlink analysis of 2,700 web CVs found that a third had at least one outlink to an OA target, typically a public eprint archive or an individual self-archived file. This proportion was considerably higher in astronomy (48%) and philosophy (37%) than in environmental engineering (29%) and public health (21%). There were also differences in linking to publishers' websites, resources, and discussions. Perhaps most important, however, the amount of linking to OA publications seems to be much lower than allowed by publishers and journals, suggesting that many opportunities for disseminating full-text research online are being missed, especially in disciplines without established repositories. Moreover, few academics seem to be exploiting their CVs to link to discussions, resources, or article abstracts, which seems to be another missed opportunity for publicizing research.

0.0018160412 = product of:
  0.010896247 = sum of:
    0.010896247 = weight(_text_:in in 3215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010896247 = score(doc=3215,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 3215, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3215)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Twitter is used by a substantial minority of the populations of many countries to share short messages, sometimes including images. Nevertheless, despite some research into specific images, such as selfies, and a few news stories about specific tweeted photographs, little is known about the types of images that are routinely shared. In response, this article reports a content analysis of random samples of 800 images tweeted from the UK or USA during a week at the end of 2014. Although most images were photographs, a substantial minority were hybrid or layered image forms: phone screenshots, collages, captioned pictures, and pictures of text messages. About half were primarily of one or more people, including 10% that were selfies, but a wide variety of other things were also pictured. Some of the images were for advertising or to share a joke but in most cases the purpose of the tweet seemed to be to share the minutiae of daily lives, performing the function of chat or gossip, sometimes in innovative ways.

0.0018160412 = product of:
  0.010896247 = sum of:
    0.010896247 = weight(_text_:in in 3226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010896247 = score(doc=3226,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 3226, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3226)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Scholars writing books that are widely used to support teaching in higher education may be undervalued because of a lack of evidence of teaching value. Although sales data may give credible evidence for textbooks, these data may poorly reflect educational uses of other types of books. As an alternative, this article proposes a method to search automatically for mentions of books in online academic course syllabi based on Bing searches for syllabi mentioning a given book, filtering out false matches through an extensive set of rules. The method had an accuracy of over 90% based on manual checks of a sample of 2,600 results from the initial Bing searches. Over one third of about 14,000 monographs checked had one or more academic syllabus mention, with more in the arts and humanities (56%) and social sciences (52%). Low but significant correlations between syllabus mentions and citations across most fields, except the social sciences, suggest that books tend to have different levels of impact for teaching and research. In conclusion, the automatic syllabus search method gives a new way to estimate the educational utility of books in a way that sales data and citation counts cannot.

0.0018160412 = product of:
  0.010896247 = sum of:
    0.010896247 = weight(_text_:in in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010896247 = score(doc=3440,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0016880394 = product of:
  0.010128236 = sum of:
    0.010128236 = weight(_text_:in in 1004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010128236 = score(doc=1004,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 1004, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1004)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

General sentiment analysis for the social web has become increasingly useful for shedding light on the role of emotion in online communication and offline events in both academic research and data journalism. Nevertheless, existing general-purpose social web sentiment analysis algorithms may not be optimal for texts focussed around specific topics. This article introduces 2 new methods, mood setting and lexicon extension, to improve the accuracy of topic-specific lexical sentiment strength detection for the social web. Mood setting allows the topic mood to determine the default polarity for ostensibly neutral expressive text. Topic-specific lexicon extension involves adding topic-specific words to the default general sentiment lexicon. Experiments with 8 data sets show that both methods can improve sentiment analysis performance in corpora and are recommended when the topic focus is tightest.

0.0016243167 = product of:
  0.0097459 = sum of:
    0.0097459 = weight(_text_:in in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0097459 = score(doc=1229,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Data collected by social media platforms have been introduced as new sources for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation analysis. Data generated from social media activities can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This article aims to provide systematic evidence about how often Twitter is used to disseminate information about journal articles in the biomedical sciences. The analysis is based on 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science and published between 2010 and 2012. The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed and compared to citations to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter and how far tweets correlate with citation impact. With less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general but differs between journals and specialties. Correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework using the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media-based metrics.

0.0016243167 = product of:
  0.0097459 = sum of:
    0.0097459 = weight(_text_:in in 2162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0097459 = score(doc=2162,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 2162, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2162)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.