Search (33 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  1. Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006) 0.04 
    0.03709051 = product of:
  0.07418102 = sum of:
    0.07418102 = sum of:
      0.016869452 = weight(_text_:d in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016869452 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.10045733 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052875843 = queryNorm
          0.16792654 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.057311572 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057311572 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18516219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052875843 = 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)
    Date
    4.12.2006 12:12:22
    Language
    d
  2. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Why are coauthored academic articles more cited : higher quality or larger audience? (2023) 0.03 
    0.033086523 = sum of:
  0.015176657 = product of:
    0.060706627 = sum of:
      0.060706627 = weight(_text_:authors in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060706627 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24105114 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052875843 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017909866 = product of:
    0.03581973 = sum of:
      0.03581973 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03581973 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18516219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052875843 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:11:50
  3. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010) 0.02 
    0.023181569 = product of:
  0.046363138 = sum of:
    0.046363138 = sum of:
      0.010543408 = weight(_text_:d in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010543408 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.10045733 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052875843 = queryNorm
          0.104954086 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
      0.03581973 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03581973 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18516219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052875843 = 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)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:29:23
  4. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.02 
    0.023181569 = product of:
  0.046363138 = sum of:
    0.046363138 = sum of:
      0.010543408 = weight(_text_:d in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010543408 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.10045733 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052875843 = queryNorm
          0.104954086 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
      0.03581973 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03581973 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18516219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052875843 = 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)
    Date
    6. 4.2012 18:16:22
  5. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? : An analysis of mendeley readers (2015) 0.01 
    0.013143372 = product of:
  0.026286744 = sum of:
    0.026286744 = product of:
      0.105146974 = sum of:
        0.105146974 = weight(_text_:authors in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.105146974 = score(doc=1850,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24105114 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052875843 = queryNorm
            0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 1850, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1850)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    International collaboration tends to result in more highly cited research and, partly as a result of this, many research funding schemes are specifically international in scope. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether this citation advantage is the result of higher quality research or due to other factors, such as a larger audience for the publications. To test whether the apparent advantage of internationally collaborative research may be due to additional interest in articles from the countries of the authors, this article assesses the extent to which the national affiliations of the authors of articles affect the national affiliations of their Mendeley readers. Based on English-language Web of Science articles in 10 fields from science, medicine, social science, and the humanities, the results of statistical models comparing author and reader affiliations suggest that, in most fields, Mendeley users are disproportionately readers of articles authored from within their own country. In addition, there are several cases in which Mendeley users from certain countries tend to ignore articles from specific other countries, although it is not clear whether this reflects national biases or different national specialisms within a field. In conclusion, research funders should not incentivize international collaboration on the basis that it is, in general, higher quality because its higher impact may be primarily due to its larger audience. Moreover, authors should guard against national biases in their reading to select only the best and most relevant publications to inform their research.
  6. Thelwall, M.; Bourrier, M.K.: ¬The reading background of Goodreads book club members : a female fiction canon? (2019) 0.01 
    0.013143372 = product of:
  0.026286744 = sum of:
    0.026286744 = product of:
      0.105146974 = sum of:
        0.105146974 = weight(_text_:authors in 5461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.105146974 = score(doc=5461,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24105114 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052875843 = queryNorm
            0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 5461, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5461)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  7. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology (2013) 0.01 
    0.01287782 = product of:
  0.02575564 = sum of:
    0.02575564 = product of:
      0.10302256 = sum of:
        0.10302256 = weight(_text_:authors in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10302256 = score(doc=737,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24105114 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052875843 = queryNorm
            0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  8. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009) 0.01 
    0.012664188 = product of:
  0.025328375 = sum of:
    0.025328375 = product of:
      0.05065675 = sum of:
        0.05065675 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05065675 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18516219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052875843 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  9. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011) 0.01 
    0.010745919 = product of:
  0.021491839 = sum of:
    0.021491839 = product of:
      0.042983677 = sum of:
        0.042983677 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042983677 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18516219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052875843 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:27:06
  10. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.01 
    0.010745919 = product of:
  0.021491839 = sum of:
    0.021491839 = product of:
      0.042983677 = sum of:
        0.042983677 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042983677 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18516219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052875843 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    19. 3.2016 12:22:00
  11. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.01 
    0.010745919 = product of:
  0.021491839 = sum of:
    0.021491839 = product of:
      0.042983677 = sum of:
        0.042983677 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042983677 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18516219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052875843 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    16.11.2016 11:07:22
  12. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.01 
    0.010745919 = product of:
  0.021491839 = sum of:
    0.021491839 = product of:
      0.042983677 = sum of:
        0.042983677 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042983677 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18516219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052875843 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    28. 7.2018 10:00:22
  13. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.01 
    0.008954933 = product of:
  0.017909866 = sum of:
    0.017909866 = product of:
      0.03581973 = sum of:
        0.03581973 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03581973 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18516219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052875843 = 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(1/2)
    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.
  14. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.01 
    0.008954933 = product of:
  0.017909866 = sum of:
    0.017909866 = product of:
      0.03581973 = sum of:
        0.03581973 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03581973 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18516219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052875843 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  15. Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017) 0.01 
    0.008954933 = product of:
  0.017909866 = sum of:
    0.017909866 = product of:
      0.03581973 = sum of:
        0.03581973 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03581973 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18516219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052875843 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  16. Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020) 0.01 
    0.008954933 = product of:
  0.017909866 = sum of:
    0.017909866 = product of:
      0.03581973 = sum of:
        0.03581973 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03581973 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18516219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052875843 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  17. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Disseminating research with web CV hyperlinks (2014) 0.01 
    0.0075883283 = product of:
  0.015176657 = sum of:
    0.015176657 = product of:
      0.060706627 = sum of:
        0.060706627 = weight(_text_:authors in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060706627 = score(doc=1331,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24105114 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052875843 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1331, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1331)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  18. Abrizah, A.; Thelwall, M.: Can the impact of non-Western academic books be measured? : an investigation of Google Books and Google Scholar for Malaysia (2014) 0.01 
    0.0075883283 = product of:
  0.015176657 = sum of:
    0.015176657 = product of:
      0.060706627 = sum of:
        0.060706627 = weight(_text_:authors in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060706627 = score(doc=1548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24105114 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052875843 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  19. Mohammadi, E.; Thelwall, M.; Haustein, S.; Larivière, V.: Who reads research articles? : an altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories (2015) 0.01 
    0.0075883283 = product of:
  0.015176657 = sum of:
    0.015176657 = product of:
      0.060706627 = sum of:
        0.060706627 = weight(_text_:authors in 2162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060706627 = score(doc=2162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24105114 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052875843 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2162, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2162)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  20. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Abdoli, M.: Goodreads reviews to assess the wider impacts of books (2017) 0.01 
    0.0075883283 = product of:
  0.015176657 = sum of:
    0.015176657 = product of:
      0.060706627 = sum of:
        0.060706627 = weight(_text_:authors in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060706627 = score(doc=3768,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24105114 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052875843 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 3768, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3768)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 32
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Themes