-
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
0.032751795 = sum of:
0.015023118 = product of:
0.06009247 = sum of:
0.06009247 = weight(_text_:authors in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06009247 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = 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)
0.017728677 = product of:
0.035457354 = sum of:
0.035457354 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035457354 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = 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
-
Harries, G.; Wilkinson, D.; Price, L.; Fairclough, R.; Thelwall, M.: Hyperlinks as a data source for science mapping : making sense of it all (2005)
0.02
0.019010404 = product of:
0.03802081 = sum of:
0.03802081 = product of:
0.07604162 = sum of:
0.07604162 = weight(_text_:r in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07604162 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = queryNorm
0.4388824 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
0.014182941 = product of:
0.028365882 = sum of:
0.028365882 = product of:
0.056731764 = sum of:
0.056731764 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056731764 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? : An analysis of mendeley readers (2015)
0.01
0.013010402 = product of:
0.026020804 = sum of:
0.026020804 = product of:
0.10408322 = sum of:
0.10408322 = weight(_text_:authors in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10408322 = score(doc=1850,freq=6.0), product of:
0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = 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.
-
Thelwall, M.; Bourrier, M.K.: ¬The reading background of Goodreads book club members : a female fiction canon? (2019)
0.01
0.013010402 = product of:
0.026020804 = sum of:
0.026020804 = product of:
0.10408322 = sum of:
0.10408322 = weight(_text_:authors in 5461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10408322 = score(doc=5461,freq=6.0), product of:
0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = 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.
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology (2013)
0.01
0.012747538 = product of:
0.025495077 = sum of:
0.025495077 = product of:
0.101980306 = sum of:
0.101980306 = weight(_text_:authors in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.101980306 = score(doc=737,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = 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.
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.01
0.0125360675 = product of:
0.025072135 = sum of:
0.025072135 = product of:
0.05014427 = sum of:
0.05014427 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05014427 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Prabowo, R.; Fairclough, R.: Are raw RSS feeds suitable for broad issue scanning? : a science concern case study (2006)
0.01
0.011201989 = product of:
0.022403978 = sum of:
0.022403978 = product of:
0.044807956 = sum of:
0.044807956 = weight(_text_:r in 6116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044807956 = score(doc=6116,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = queryNorm
0.25861394 = fieldWeight in 6116, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6116)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011)
0.01
0.010637206 = product of:
0.021274412 = sum of:
0.021274412 = product of:
0.042548824 = sum of:
0.042548824 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042548824 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.01
0.010637206 = product of:
0.021274412 = sum of:
0.021274412 = product of:
0.042548824 = sum of:
0.042548824 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042548824 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.01
0.010637206 = product of:
0.021274412 = sum of:
0.021274412 = product of:
0.042548824 = sum of:
0.042548824 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042548824 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = 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
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.01
0.010637206 = product of:
0.021274412 = sum of:
0.021274412 = product of:
0.042548824 = sum of:
0.042548824 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042548824 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Vann, K.; Fairclough, R.: Web issue analysis : an integrated water resource management case study (2006)
0.01
0.009505202 = product of:
0.019010404 = sum of:
0.019010404 = product of:
0.03802081 = sum of:
0.03802081 = weight(_text_:r in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03802081 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = queryNorm
0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Thelwall, M.; Prabowo, R.: Identifying and characterizing public science-related fears from RSS feeds (2007)
0.01
0.009505202 = product of:
0.019010404 = sum of:
0.019010404 = product of:
0.03802081 = sum of:
0.03802081 = weight(_text_:r in 137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03802081 = score(doc=137,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = queryNorm
0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 137, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=137)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.01
0.0088643385 = product of:
0.017728677 = sum of:
0.017728677 = product of:
0.035457354 = sum of:
0.035457354 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035457354 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = 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.
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.01
0.0088643385 = product of:
0.017728677 = sum of:
0.017728677 = product of:
0.035457354 = sum of:
0.035457354 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035457354 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:29:23
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.01
0.0088643385 = product of:
0.017728677 = sum of:
0.017728677 = product of:
0.035457354 = sum of:
0.035457354 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035457354 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 6. 4.2012 18:16:22
-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.01
0.0088643385 = product of:
0.017728677 = sum of:
0.017728677 = product of:
0.035457354 = sum of:
0.035457354 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035457354 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.01
0.0088643385 = product of:
0.017728677 = sum of:
0.017728677 = product of:
0.035457354 = sum of:
0.035457354 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035457354 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.01
0.0088643385 = product of:
0.017728677 = sum of:
0.017728677 = product of:
0.035457354 = sum of:
0.035457354 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035457354 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05234091 = 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
