Search (117 results, page 1 of 6)

0.049618527 = sum of:
  0.011270321 = product of:
    0.056351602 = sum of:
      0.056351602 = weight(_text_:authors in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056351602 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2237584 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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)
    0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.038348205 = sum of:
    0.0050981366 = weight(_text_:a in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050981366 = score(doc=995,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04908259 = queryNorm
        0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.033250067 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033250067 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17187886 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04908259 = 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)

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

Type

a

0.029483993 = product of:
  0.058967985 = sum of:
    0.058967985 = sum of:
      0.005767883 = weight(_text_:a in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005767883 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = queryNorm
          0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.053200103 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053200103 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17187886 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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

Type

a

0.026633305 = product of:
  0.05326661 = sum of:
    0.05326661 = sum of:
      0.006243917 = weight(_text_:a in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006243917 = score(doc=2734,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = queryNorm
          0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.047022693 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047022693 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17187886 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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)

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

Type

a

0.024786554 = product of:
  0.04957311 = sum of:
    0.04957311 = sum of:
      0.009673035 = weight(_text_:a in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009673035 = score(doc=4345,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = queryNorm
          0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
      0.039900076 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039900076 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17187886 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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)

Abstract

The microblogging site Twitter generates a constant stream of communication, some of which concerns events of general interest. An analysis of Twitter may, therefore, give insights into why particular events resonate with the population. This article reports a study of a month of English Twitter posts, assessing whether popular events are typically associated with increases in sentiment strength, as seems intuitively likely. Using the top 30 events, determined by a measure of relative increase in (general) term usage, the results give strong evidence that popular events are normally associated with increases in negative sentiment strength and some evidence that peaks of interest in events have stronger positive sentiment than the time before the peak. It seems that many positive events, such as the Oscars, are capable of generating increased negative sentiment in reaction to them. Nevertheless, the surprisingly small average change in sentiment associated with popular events (typically 1% and only 6% for Tiger Woods' confessions) is consistent with events affording posters opportunities to satisfy pre-existing personal goals more often than eliciting instinctive reactions.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:27:06

Type

a

0.02428964 = sum of:
  0.019520769 = product of:
    0.09760384 = sum of:
      0.09760384 = weight(_text_:authors in 5461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09760384 = score(doc=5461,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2237584 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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)
    0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.0047688703 = product of:
    0.009537741 = sum of:
      0.009537741 = weight(_text_:a in 5461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009537741 = score(doc=5461,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = queryNorm
          0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 5461, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5461)
    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.

Type

a

0.023696387 = product of:
  0.047392774 = sum of:
    0.047392774 = sum of:
      0.0074927 = weight(_text_:a in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0074927 = score(doc=4291,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = queryNorm
          0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
      0.039900076 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039900076 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17187886 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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)

Abstract

Counts of tweets and Mendeley user libraries have been proposed as altmetric alternatives to citation counts for the impact assessment of articles. Although both have been investigated to discover whether they correlate with article citations, it is not known whether users tend to tweet or save (in Mendeley) the same kinds of articles that they cite. In response, this article compares pairs of articles that are tweeted, saved to a Mendeley library, or cited by the same user, but possibly a different user for each source. The study analyzes 1,131,318 articles published in 2012, with minimum tweeted (10), saved to Mendeley (100), and cited (10) thresholds. The results show surprisingly minor overall overlaps between the three phenomena. The importance of journals for Twitter and the presence of many bots at different levels of activity suggest that this site has little value for impact altmetrics. The moderate differences between patterns of saving and citation suggest that Mendeley can be used for some types of impact assessments, but sensitivity is needed for underlying differences.

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

Type

a

0.023452282 = sum of:
  0.019126369 = product of:
    0.09563184 = sum of:
      0.09563184 = weight(_text_:authors in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09563184 = score(doc=737,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2237584 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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)
    0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.0043259123 = product of:
    0.008651825 = sum of:
      0.008651825 = weight(_text_:a in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008651825 = score(doc=737,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = queryNorm
          0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
    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.

Type

a

0.023125695 = sum of:
  0.019520769 = product of:
    0.09760384 = sum of:
      0.09760384 = weight(_text_:authors in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09760384 = score(doc=1850,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2237584 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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)
    0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.0036049266 = product of:
    0.0072098533 = sum of:
      0.0072098533 = weight(_text_:a in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0072098533 = score(doc=1850,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1850, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1850)
    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.

Type

a

0.02300892 = product of:
  0.04601784 = sum of:
    0.04601784 = sum of:
      0.006117764 = weight(_text_:a in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006117764 = score(doc=2856,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = queryNorm
          0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
      0.039900076 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039900076 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17187886 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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)

Abstract

This article introduces a new source of evidence of the value of medical-related research: citations from clinical guidelines. These give evidence that research findings have been used to inform the day-to-day practice of medical staff. To identify whether citations from guidelines can give different information from that of traditional citation counts, this article assesses the extent to which references in clinical guidelines tend to be highly cited in the academic literature and highly read in Mendeley. Using evidence from the United Kingdom, references associated with the UK's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines tended to be substantially more cited than comparable articles, unless they had been published in the most recent 3 years. Citation counts also seemed to be stronger indicators than Mendeley readership altmetrics. Hence, although presence in guidelines may be particularly useful to highlight the contributions of recently published articles, for older articles citation counts may already be sufficient to recognize their contributions to health in society.

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

Type

a

0.022112994 = product of:
  0.044225987 = sum of:
    0.044225987 = sum of:
      0.0043259123 = weight(_text_:a in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0043259123 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = queryNorm
          0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
      0.039900076 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039900076 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17187886 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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)

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

Type

a

0.021040149 = product of:
  0.042080298 = sum of:
    0.042080298 = sum of:
      0.008830232 = weight(_text_:a in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008830232 = score(doc=4200,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = queryNorm
          0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
      0.033250067 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033250067 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17187886 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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)

Abstract

A huge number of informal messages are posted every day in social network sites, blogs, and discussion forums. Emotions seem to be frequently important in these texts for expressing friendship, showing social support or as part of online arguments. Algorithms to identify sentiment and sentiment strength are needed to help understand the role of emotion in this informal communication and also to identify inappropriate or anomalous affective utterances, potentially associated with threatening behavior to the self or others. Nevertheless, existing sentiment detection algorithms tend to be commercially oriented, designed to identify opinions about products rather than user behaviors. This article partly fills this gap with a new algorithm, SentiStrength, to extract sentiment strength from informal English text, using new methods to exploit the de facto grammars and spelling styles of cyberspace. Applied to MySpace comments and with a lookup table of term sentiment strengths optimized by machine learning, SentiStrength is able to predict positive emotion with 60.6% accuracy and negative emotion with 72.8% accuracy, both based upon strength scales of 1-5. The former, but not the latter, is better than baseline and a wide range of general machine learning approaches.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:29:23

Type

a

0.020655464 = product of:
  0.04131093 = sum of:
    0.04131093 = sum of:
      0.008060862 = weight(_text_:a in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008060862 = score(doc=178,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = queryNorm
          0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
      0.033250067 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033250067 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17187886 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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)

Abstract

Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Type

a

0.02022996 = product of:
  0.04045992 = sum of:
    0.04045992 = sum of:
      0.0072098533 = weight(_text_:a in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0072098533 = score(doc=586,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.033250067 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033250067 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17187886 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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)

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.

Type

a

0.019746993 = product of:
  0.039493985 = sum of:
    0.039493985 = sum of:
      0.006243917 = weight(_text_:a in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006243917 = score(doc=57,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = queryNorm
          0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
      0.033250067 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033250067 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17187886 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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)

Abstract

Webometric network analyses have been used to map the connectivity of groups of websites to identify clusters, important sites or overall structure. Such analyses have mainly been based upon hyperlink counts, the number of hyperlinks between a pair of websites, although some have used title mentions or URL citations instead. The ability to automatically gather hyperlink counts from Yahoo! ceased in April 2011 and the ability to manually gather such counts was due to cease by early 2012, creating a need for alternatives. This article assesses URL citations and title mentions as possible replacements for hyperlinks in both binary and weighted direct link and co-inlink network diagrams. It also assesses three different types of data for the network connections: hit count estimates, counts of matching URLs, and filtered counts of matching URLs. Results from analyses of U.S. library and information science departments and U.K. universities give evidence that metrics based upon URLs or titles can be appropriate replacements for metrics based upon hyperlinks for both binary and weighted networks, although filtered counts of matching URLs are necessary to give the best results for co-title mention and co-URL citation network diagrams.

Date

6. 4.2012 18:16:22

Type

a

0.019174103 = product of:
  0.038348205 = sum of:
    0.038348205 = sum of:
      0.0050981366 = weight(_text_:a in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0050981366 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = queryNorm
          0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.033250067 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033250067 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17187886 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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)

Abstract

Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Type

a

0.018427497 = product of:
  0.036854994 = sum of:
    0.036854994 = sum of:
      0.0036049266 = weight(_text_:a in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0036049266 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = queryNorm
          0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
      0.033250067 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033250067 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17187886 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Type

a

0.015685437 = sum of:
  0.011270321 = product of:
    0.056351602 = sum of:
      0.056351602 = weight(_text_:authors in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056351602 = score(doc=1331,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2237584 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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)
    0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.004415116 = product of:
    0.008830232 = sum of:
      0.008830232 = weight(_text_:a in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008830232 = score(doc=1331,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = queryNorm
          0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 1331, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1331)
    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.

Type

a

0.015300753 = sum of:
  0.011270321 = product of:
    0.056351602 = sum of:
      0.056351602 = weight(_text_:authors in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056351602 = score(doc=3768,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2237584 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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)
    0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.004030431 = product of:
    0.008060862 = sum of:
      0.008060862 = weight(_text_:a in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008060862 = score(doc=3768,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = queryNorm
          0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3768, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3768)
    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.

Type

a

0.014875248 = sum of:
  0.011270321 = product of:
    0.056351602 = sum of:
      0.056351602 = weight(_text_:authors in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056351602 = score(doc=1548,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2237584 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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)
    0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.0036049266 = product of:
    0.0072098533 = sum of:
      0.0072098533 = weight(_text_:a in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0072098533 = score(doc=1548,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
    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.

Type

a

0.013072784 = sum of:
  0.011270321 = product of:
    0.056351602 = sum of:
      0.056351602 = weight(_text_:authors in 2162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056351602 = score(doc=2162,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2237584 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = 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)
    0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.0018024633 = product of:
    0.0036049266 = sum of:
      0.0036049266 = weight(_text_:a in 2162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0036049266 = score(doc=2162,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.05659453 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04908259 = queryNorm
          0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 2162, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2162)
    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.

Type

a