Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology (2013) 0.02 
    0.0150484545 = product of:
  0.045145363 = sum of:
    0.045145363 = product of:
      0.090290725 = sum of:
        0.090290725 = weight(_text_:2009 in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.090290725 = score(doc=737,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20749448 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6415744 = idf(docFreq=1158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04470347 = queryNorm
            0.43514758 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.6415744 = idf(docFreq=1158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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.
  2. Shema, H.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Thelwall, M.: Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? : Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics (2014) 0.02 
    0.0150484545 = product of:
  0.045145363 = sum of:
    0.045145363 = product of:
      0.090290725 = sum of:
        0.090290725 = weight(_text_:2009 in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.090290725 = score(doc=1258,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20749448 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6415744 = idf(docFreq=1158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04470347 = queryNorm
            0.43514758 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.6415744 = idf(docFreq=1158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Journal-based citations are an important source of data for impact indices. However, the impact of journal articles extends beyond formal scholarly discourse. Measuring online scholarly impact calls for new indices, complementary to the older ones. This article examines a possible alternative metric source, blog posts aggregated at ResearchBlogging.org, which discuss peer-reviewed articles and provide full bibliographic references. Articles reviewed in these blogs therefore receive "blog citations." We hypothesized that articles receiving blog citations close to their publication time receive more journal citations later than the articles in the same journal published in the same year that did not receive such blog citations. Statistically significant evidence for articles published in 2009 and 2010 support this hypothesis for seven of 12 journals (58%) in 2009 and 13 of 19 journals (68%) in 2010. We suggest, based on these results, that blog citations can be used as an alternative metric source.
  3. Thelwall, M.: Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles : an analysis of 45 fields (2016) 0.01 
    0.010640863 = product of:
  0.03192259 = sum of:
    0.03192259 = product of:
      0.06384518 = sum of:
        0.06384518 = weight(_text_:2009 in 3055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06384518 = score(doc=3055,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20749448 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6415744 = idf(docFreq=1158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04470347 = queryNorm
            0.3076958 = fieldWeight in 3055, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6415744 = idf(docFreq=1158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3055)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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.
  4. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011) 0.01 
    0.0060567027 = product of:
  0.018170107 = sum of:
    0.018170107 = product of:
      0.036340214 = sum of:
        0.036340214 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036340214 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15654393 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04470347 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:27:06
  5. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.01 
    0.0060567027 = product of:
  0.018170107 = sum of:
    0.018170107 = product of:
      0.036340214 = sum of:
        0.036340214 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036340214 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15654393 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04470347 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    19. 3.2016 12:22:00
  6. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.01 
    0.0060567027 = product of:
  0.018170107 = sum of:
    0.018170107 = product of:
      0.036340214 = sum of:
        0.036340214 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036340214 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15654393 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04470347 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    16.11.2016 11:07:22
  7. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.01 
    0.0060567027 = product of:
  0.018170107 = sum of:
    0.018170107 = product of:
      0.036340214 = sum of:
        0.036340214 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036340214 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15654393 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04470347 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    28. 7.2018 10:00:22
  8. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010) 0.01 
    0.0050472524 = product of:
  0.015141757 = sum of:
    0.015141757 = product of:
      0.030283514 = sum of:
        0.030283514 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030283514 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15654393 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04470347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:29:23
  9. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.01 
    0.0050472524 = product of:
  0.015141757 = sum of:
    0.015141757 = product of:
      0.030283514 = sum of:
        0.030283514 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030283514 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15654393 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04470347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    6. 4.2012 18:16:22
  10. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.01 
    0.0050472524 = product of:
  0.015141757 = sum of:
    0.015141757 = product of:
      0.030283514 = sum of:
        0.030283514 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030283514 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15654393 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04470347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  11. Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017) 0.01 
    0.0050472524 = product of:
  0.015141757 = sum of:
    0.015141757 = product of:
      0.030283514 = sum of:
        0.030283514 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030283514 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15654393 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04470347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors

Themes