Search (58 results, page 3 of 3)

0.0014066997 = product of:
  0.008440197 = sum of:
    0.008440197 = weight(_text_:in in 4533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008440197 = score(doc=4533,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 4533, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4533)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - Link analysis is an established topic within webometrics. It normally uses counts of links between sets of web sites or to sets of web sites. These link counts are derived from web crawlers or commercial search engines with the latter being the only alternative for some investigations. This paper compares link counts with URL citation counts in order to assess whether the latter could be a replacement for the former if the major search engines withdraw their advanced hyperlink search facilities. Design/methodology/approach - URL citation counts are compared with link counts for a variety of data sets used in previous webometric studies. Findings - The results show a high degree of correlation between the two but with URL citations being much less numerous, at least outside academia and business. Research limitations/implications - The results cover a small selection of 15 case studies and so the findings are only indicative. Significant differences between results indicate that the difference between link counts and URL citation counts will vary between webometric studies. Practical implications - Should link searches be withdrawn, then link analyses of less well linked non-academic, non-commercial sites would be seriously weakened, although citations based on e-mail addresses could help to make citations more numerous than links for some business and academic contexts. Originality/value - This is the first systematic study of the difference between link counts and URL citation counts in a variety of contexts and it shows that there are significant differences between the two.

0.0014066997 = product of:
  0.008440197 = sum of:
    0.008440197 = weight(_text_:in in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008440197 = score(doc=63,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

YouTube is one of the world's most popular websites and hosts numerous amateur and professional videos. Comments on these videos might be researched to give insights into audience reactions to important issues or particular videos. Yet, little is known about YouTube discussions in general: how frequent they are, who typically participates, and the role of sentiment. This article fills this gap through an analysis of large samples of text comments on YouTube videos. The results identify patterns and give some benchmarks against which future YouTube research into individual videos can be compared. For instance, the typical YouTube comment was mildly positive, was posted by a 29-year-old male, and contained 58 characters. About 23% of comments in the complete comment sets were replies to previous comments. There was no typical density of discussion on YouTube videos in the sense of the proportion of replies to other comments: videos with both few and many replies were common. The YouTube audience engaged with each other disproportionately when making negative comments, however; positive comments elicited few replies. The biggest trigger of discussion seemed to be religion, whereas the videos attracting the least discussion were predominantly from the Music, Comedy, and How to & Style categories. This suggests different audience uses for YouTube, from passive entertainment to active debating.

0.0014066997 = product of:
  0.008440197 = sum of:
    0.008440197 = weight(_text_:in in 1863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008440197 = score(doc=1863,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 1863, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1863)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Blogs that cite academic articles have emerged as a potential source of alternative impact metrics for the visibility of the blogged articles. Nevertheless, to evaluate more fully the value of blog citations, it is necessary to investigate whether research blogs focus on particular types of articles or give new perspectives on scientific discourse. Therefore, we studied the characteristics of peer-reviewed references in blogs and the typical content of blog posts to gain insight into bloggers' motivations. The sample consisted of 391 blog posts from 2010 to 2012 in Researchblogging.org's health category. The bloggers mostly cited recent research articles or reviews from top multidisciplinary and general medical journals. Using content analysis methods, we created a general classification scheme for blog post content with 10 major topic categories, each with several subcategories. The results suggest that health research bloggers rarely self-cite and that the vast majority of their blog posts (90%) include a general discussion of the issue covered in the article, with more than one quarter providing health-related advice based on the article(s) covered. These factors suggest a genuine attempt to engage with a wider, nonacademic audience. Nevertheless, almost 30% of the posts included some criticism of the issues being discussed.

0.0014066997 = product of:
  0.008440197 = sum of:
    0.008440197 = weight(_text_:in in 2190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008440197 = score(doc=2190,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 2190, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2190)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0014066997 = product of:
  0.008440197 = sum of:
    0.008440197 = weight(_text_:in in 3349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008440197 = score(doc=3349,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 3349, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3349)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The large multidisciplinary academic social website ResearchGate aims to help academics to connect with each other and to publicize their work. Despite its popularity, little is known about the age and discipline of the articles uploaded and viewed in the site and whether publication statistics from the site could be useful impact indicators. In response, this article assesses samples of ResearchGate articles uploaded at specific dates, comparing their views in the site to their Mendeley readers and Scopus-indexed citations. This analysis shows that ResearchGate is dominated by recent articles, which attract about three times as many views as older articles. ResearchGate has uneven coverage of scholarship, with the arts and humanities, health professions, and decision sciences poorly represented and some fields receiving twice as many views per article as others. View counts for uploaded articles have low to moderate positive correlations with both Scopus citations and Mendeley readers, which is consistent with them tending to reflect a wider audience than Scopus-publishing scholars. Hence, for articles uploaded to the site, view counts may give a genuinely new audience indicator.

0.0014066997 = product of:
  0.008440197 = sum of:
    0.008440197 = weight(_text_:in in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008440197 = score(doc=3768,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 3768, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3768)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Although peer-review and citation counts are commonly used to help assess the scholarly impact of published research, informal reader feedback might also be exploited to help assess the wider impacts of books, such as their educational or cultural value. The social website Goodreads seems to be a reasonable source for this purpose because it includes a large number of book reviews and ratings by many users inside and outside of academia. To check this, Goodreads book metrics were compared with different book-based impact indicators for 15,928 academic books across broad fields. Goodreads engagements were numerous enough in the arts (85% of books had at least one), humanities (80%), and social sciences (67%) for use as a source of impact evidence. Low and moderate correlations between Goodreads book metrics and scholarly or non-scholarly indicators suggest that reader feedback in Goodreads reflects the many purposes of books rather than a single type of impact. Although Goodreads book metrics can be manipulated, they could be used guardedly by academics, authors, and publishers in evaluations.

0.0014066997 = product of:
  0.008440197 = sum of:
    0.008440197 = weight(_text_:in in 4015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008440197 = score(doc=4015,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 4015, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4015)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Within science, citation counts are widely used to estimate research impact but publication delays mean that they are not useful for recent research. This gap can be filled by Mendeley reader counts, which are valuable early impact indicators for academic articles because they appear before citations and correlate strongly with them. Nevertheless, it is not known how Mendeley readership counts accumulate within the year of publication, and so it is unclear how soon they can be used. In response, this paper reports a longitudinal weekly study of the Mendeley readers of articles in 6 library and information science journals from 2016. The results suggest that Mendeley readers accrue from when articles are first available online and continue to steadily build. For journals with large publication delays, articles can already have substantial numbers of readers by their publication date. Thus, Mendeley reader counts may even be useful as early impact indicators for articles before they have been officially published in a journal issue. If field normalized indicators are needed, then these can be generated when journal issues are published using the online first date.

0.0014066997 = product of:
  0.008440197 = sum of:
    0.008440197 = weight(_text_:in in 5461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008440197 = score(doc=5461,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 5461, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5461)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose Despite the social, educational and therapeutic benefits of book clubs, little is known about which books participants are likely to have read. In response, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the public bookshelves of those that have joined a group within the Goodreads social network site. Design/methodology/approach Books listed as read by members of 50 large English-language Goodreads groups - with a genre focus or other theme - were compiled by author and title. Findings Recent and youth-oriented fiction dominate the 50 books most read by book club members, whilst almost half are works of literature frequently taught at the secondary and postsecondary level (literary classics). Whilst J.K. Rowling is almost ubiquitous (at least 63 per cent as frequently listed as other authors in any group, including groups for other genres), most authors, including Shakespeare (15 per cent), Goulding (6 per cent) and Hemmingway (9 per cent), are little read by some groups. Nor are individual recent literary prize winners or works in languages other than English frequently read. Research limitations/implications Although these results are derived from a single popular website, knowing more about what book club members are likely to have read should help participants, organisers and moderators. For example, recent literary prize winners might be a good choice, given that few members may have read them. Originality/value This is the first large scale study of book group members' reading patterns. Whilst typical reading is likely to vary by group theme and average age, there seems to be a mainly female canon of about 14 authors and 19 books that Goodreads book club members are likely to have read.

0.0013782785 = product of:
  0.00826967 = sum of:
    0.00826967 = weight(_text_:in in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00826967 = score(doc=3574,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Despite over 10 years of research there is no agreement on the most suitable roles for Webometric indicators in support of research policy and almost no field-based Webometrics. This article partly fills these gaps by analyzing the potential of policy-relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields with the help of 4 case studies. Although Webometrics cannot provide robust indicators of knowledge flows or research impact, it can provide some evidence of networking and mutual awareness. The scope of Webometrics is also relatively wide, including not only research organizations and firms but also intermediary groups like professional associations, Web portals, and government agencies. Webometrics can, therefore, provide evidence about the research process to compliment peer review, bibliometric, and patent indicators: tracking the early, mainly prepublication development of new fields and research funding initiatives, assessing the role and impact of intermediary organizations and the need for new ones, and monitoring the extent of mutual awareness in particular research areas.

0.0013782785 = product of:
  0.00826967 = sum of:
    0.00826967 = weight(_text_:in in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00826967 = score(doc=2495,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0013782785 = product of:
  0.00826967 = sum of:
    0.00826967 = weight(_text_:in in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00826967 = score(doc=2768,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Although citation counts are often used to evaluate the research impact of academic publications, they are problematic for books that aim for educational or cultural impact. To fill this gap, this article assesses whether a number of simple metrics derived from Amazon.com reviews of academic books could provide evidence of their impact. Based on a set of 2,739 academic monographs from 2008 and a set of 1,305 best-selling books in 15 Amazon.com academic subject categories, the existence of significant but low or moderate correlations between citations and numbers of reviews, combined with other evidence, suggests that online book reviews tend to reflect the wider popularity of a book rather than its academic impact, although there are substantial disciplinary differences. Metrics based on online reviews are therefore recommended for the evaluation of books that aim at a wide audience inside or outside academia when it is important to capture the broader impacts of educational or cultural activities and when they cannot be manipulated in advance of the evaluation.

0.0011485652 = product of:
  0.0068913912 = sum of:
    0.0068913912 = weight(_text_:in in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068913912 = score(doc=3966,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

9.745899E-4 = product of:
  0.0058475393 = sum of:
    0.0058475393 = weight(_text_:in in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058475393 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 1813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1813)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

ResearchGate is a social network site for academics to create their own profiles, list their publications, and interact with each other. Like Academia.edu, it provides a new way for scholars to disseminate their work and hence potentially changes the dynamics of informal scholarly communication. This article assesses whether ResearchGate usage and publication data broadly reflect existing academic hierarchies and whether individual countries are set to benefit or lose out from the site. The results show that rankings based on ResearchGate statistics correlate moderately well with other rankings of academic institutions, suggesting that ResearchGate use broadly reflects the traditional distribution of academic capital. Moreover, while Brazil, India, and some other countries seem to be disproportionately taking advantage of ResearchGate, academics in China, South Korea, and Russia may be missing opportunities to use ResearchGate to maximize the academic impact of their publications.

9.745899E-4 = product of:
  0.0058475393 = sum of:
    0.0058475393 = weight(_text_:in in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058475393 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

8.1215834E-4 = product of:
  0.00487295 = sum of:
    0.00487295 = weight(_text_:in in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00487295 = score(doc=3317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Citations from patents to scientific publications provide useful evidence about the commercial impact of academic research, but automatically searchable databases are needed to exploit this connection for large-scale patent citation evaluations. Google covers multiple different international patent office databases but does not index patent citations or allow automatic searches. In response, this article introduces a semiautomatic indirect method via Bing to extract and filter patent citations from Google to academic papers with an overall precision of 98%. The method was evaluated with 322,192 science and engineering Scopus articles from every second year for the period 1996-2012. Although manual Google Patent searches give more results, especially for articles with many patent citations, the difference is not large enough to be a major problem. Within Biomedical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Pharmacology & Pharmaceutics, 7% to 10% of Scopus articles had at least one patent citation but other fields had far fewer, so patent citation analysis is only relevant for a minority of publications. Low but positive correlations between Google Patent citations and Scopus citations across all fields suggest that traditional citation counts cannot substitute for patent citations when evaluating research.

8.1215834E-4 = product of:
  0.00487295 = sum of:
    0.00487295 = weight(_text_:in in 3534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00487295 = score(doc=3534,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 3534, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3534)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Goodreads is an Amazon-owned book-based social web site for members to share books, read, review books, rate books, and connect with other readers. Goodreads has tens of millions of book reviews, recommendations, and ratings that may help librarians and readers to select relevant books. This article describes a first investigation of the properties of Goodreads users, using a random sample of 50,000 members. The results suggest that about three quarters of members with a public profile are female, and that there is little difference between male and female users in patterns of behavior, except for females registering more books and rating them less positively. Goodreads librarians and super-users engage extensively with most features of the site. The absence of strong correlations between book-based and social usage statistics (e.g., numbers of friends, followers, books, reviews, and ratings) suggests that members choose their own individual balance of social and book activities and rarely ignore one at the expense of the other. Goodreads is therefore neither primarily a book-based website nor primarily a social network site but is a genuine hybrid, social navigation site.

8.1215834E-4 = product of:
  0.00487295 = sum of:
    0.00487295 = weight(_text_:in in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00487295 = score(doc=3760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

8.1215834E-4 = product of:
  0.00487295 = sum of:
    0.00487295 = weight(_text_:in in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00487295 = score(doc=3766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.