Search (110 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  1. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.15 
    0.14982328 = product of:
  0.19976437 = sum of:
    0.027355144 = weight(_text_:science in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027355144 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.060034476 = weight(_text_:research in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060034476 = score(doc=2593,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.41698778 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.11237476 = sum of:
      0.078189164 = weight(_text_:network in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.078189164 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = queryNorm
          0.34791988 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.034185596 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034185596 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = 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)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    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
    Object
    Research Papers in Economics
    Social Science Research Network
  2. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.09 
    0.092584334 = product of:
  0.18516867 = sum of:
    0.027355144 = weight(_text_:science in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027355144 = score(doc=57,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
    0.15781352 = sum of:
      0.12362792 = weight(_text_:network in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12362792 = score(doc=57,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = queryNorm
          0.5501096 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
      0.034185596 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034185596 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = 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(2/4)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.805-816
  3. Thelwall, M.; Wilkinson, D.; Uppal, S.: Data mining emotion in social network communication : gender differences in MySpace (2009) 0.09 
    0.088134244 = product of:
  0.11751232 = sum of:
    0.032826174 = weight(_text_:science in 3322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032826174 = score(doc=3322,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 3322, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3322)
    0.027229078 = weight(_text_:research in 3322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027229078 = score(doc=3322,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 3322, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3322)
    0.05745707 = product of:
      0.11491414 = sum of:
        0.11491414 = weight(_text_:network in 3322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11491414 = score(doc=3322,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.51133573 = fieldWeight in 3322, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3322)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Despite the rapid growth in social network sites and in data mining for emotion (sentiment analysis), little research has tied the two together, and none has had social science goals. This article examines the extent to which emotion is present in MySpace comments, using a combination of data mining and content analysis, and exploring age and gender. A random sample of 819 public comments to or from U.S. users was manually classified for strength of positive and negative emotion. Two thirds of the comments expressed positive emotion, but a minority (20%) contained negative emotion, confirming that MySpace is an extraordinarily emotion-rich environment. Females are likely to give and receive more positive comments than are males, but there is no difference for negative comments. It is thus possible that females are more successful social network site users partly because of their greater ability to textually harness positive affect.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.1, S.190-199
  4. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Academia.edu : Social network or Academic Network? (2014) 0.08 
    0.08194335 = product of:
  0.1092578 = sum of:
    0.038686015 = weight(_text_:science in 1234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038686015 = score(doc=1234,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 1234, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1234)
    0.0226909 = weight(_text_:research in 1234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0226909 = score(doc=1234,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 1234, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1234)
    0.047880888 = product of:
      0.095761776 = sum of:
        0.095761776 = weight(_text_:network in 1234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095761776 = score(doc=1234,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.42611307 = fieldWeight in 1234, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Academic social network sites Academia.edu and ResearchGate, and reference sharing sites Mendeley, Bibsonomy, Zotero, and CiteULike, give scholars the ability to publicize their research outputs and connect with each other. With millions of users, these are a significant addition to the scholarly communication and academic information-seeking eco-structure. There is thus a need to understand the role that they play and the changes, if any, that they can make to the dynamics of academic careers. This article investigates attributes of philosophy scholars on Academia.edu, introducing a median-based, time-normalizing method to adjust for time delays in joining the site. In comparison to students, faculty tend to attract more profile views but female philosophers did not attract more profile views than did males, suggesting that academic capital drives philosophy uses of the site more than does friendship and networking. Secondary analyses of law, history, and computer science confirmed the faculty advantage (in terms of higher profile views) except for females in law and females in computer science. There was also a female advantage for both faculty and students in law and computer science as well as for history students. Hence, Academia.edu overall seems to reflect a hybrid of scholarly norms (the faculty advantage) and a female advantage that is suggestive of general social networking norms. Finally, traditional bibliometric measures did not correlate with any Academia.edu metrics for philosophers, perhaps because more senior academics use the site less extensively or because of the range informal scholarly activities that cannot be measured by bibliometric methods.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.721-731
  5. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009) 0.08 
    0.0800452 = product of:
  0.10672694 = sum of:
    0.043252286 = weight(_text_:science in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043252286 = score(doc=2734,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.03930179 = weight(_text_:research in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03930179 = score(doc=2734,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2729826 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.024172867 = product of:
      0.048345733 = sum of:
        0.048345733 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048345733 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = 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)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.434-442
  6. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.07 
    0.07198325 = product of:
  0.095977664 = sum of:
    0.033503074 = weight(_text_:science in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033503074 = score(doc=586,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.0453818 = weight(_text_:research in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0453818 = score(doc=586,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.31521314 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.017092798 = product of:
      0.034185596 = sum of:
        0.034185596 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034185596 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = 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)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.11, S.1631-1644
  7. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.07 
    0.06816384 = product of:
  0.09088512 = sum of:
    0.023211608 = weight(_text_:science in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023211608 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
    0.04716215 = weight(_text_:research in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04716215 = score(doc=2856,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.3275791 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
    0.020511357 = product of:
      0.041022714 = sum of:
        0.041022714 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041022714 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = 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)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.960-966
  8. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.06 
    0.060424954 = product of:
  0.08056661 = sum of:
    0.032826174 = weight(_text_:science in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032826174 = score(doc=3211,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
    0.027229078 = weight(_text_:research in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027229078 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
    0.020511357 = product of:
      0.041022714 = sum of:
        0.041022714 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041022714 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = 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)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Scientists and managers using citation-based indicators to help evaluate research cannot evaluate recent articles because of the time needed for citations to accrue. Reading occurs before citing, however, and so it makes sense to count readers rather than citations for recent publications. To assess this, Mendeley readers and citations were obtained for articles from 2004 to late 2014 in five broad categories (agriculture, business, decision science, pharmacy, and the social sciences) and 50 subcategories. In these areas, citation counts tended to increase with every extra year since publication, and readership counts tended to increase faster initially but then stabilize after about 5 years. The correlation between citations and readers was also higher for longer time periods, stabilizing after about 5 years. Although there were substantial differences between broad fields and smaller differences between subfields, the results confirm the value of Mendeley reader counts as early scientific impact indicators.
    Date
    16.11.2016 11:07:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3036-3050
  9. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010) 0.06 
    0.05841441 = product of:
  0.11682882 = sum of:
    0.027355144 = weight(_text_:science in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027355144 = score(doc=4200,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.08947368 = sum of:
      0.055288088 = weight(_text_:network in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055288088 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = queryNorm
          0.2460165 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
      0.034185596 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034185596 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = 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(2/4)
    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
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch das Erratum in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.419
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2544-2558
  10. Thelwall, M.; Prabowo, R.: Identifying and characterizing public science-related fears from RSS feeds (2007) 0.05 
    0.05208004 = product of:
  0.10416008 = sum of:
    0.06565235 = weight(_text_:science in 137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06565235 = score(doc=137,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.49389738 = fieldWeight in 137, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=137)
    0.03850773 = weight(_text_:research in 137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03850773 = score(doc=137,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2674672 = fieldWeight in 137, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=137)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    A feature of modern democracies is public mistrust of scientists and the politicization of science policy, e.g., concerning stem cell research and genetically modified food. While the extent of this mistrust is debatable, its political influence is tangible. Hence, science policy researchers and science policy makers need early warning of issues that resonate with a wide public so that they can make timely and informed decisions. In this article, a semi-automatic method for identifying significant public science-related concerns from a corpus of Internet-based RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds is described and shown to be an improvement on a previous similar system because of the introduction of feedbased aggregation. In addition, both the RSS corpus and the concept of public science-related fears are deconstructed, revealing hidden complexity. This article also provides evidence that genetically modified organisms and stem cell research were the two major policyrelevant science concern issues, although mobile phone radiation and software security also generated significant interest.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.3, S.379-390
  11. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Assessing the impact of disciplinary research on teaching : an automatic analysis of online syllabuses (2008) 0.05 
    0.05164338 = product of:
  0.10328676 = sum of:
    0.043252286 = weight(_text_:science in 2383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043252286 = score(doc=2383,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 2383, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2383)
    0.060034476 = weight(_text_:research in 2383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060034476 = score(doc=2383,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.41698778 = fieldWeight in 2383, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2383)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The impact of published academic research in the sciences and social sciences, when measured, is commonly estimated by counting citations from journal articles. The Web has now introduced new potential sources of quantitative data online that could be used to measure aspects of research impact. In this article we assess the extent to which citations from online syllabuses could be a valuable source of evidence about the educational utility of research. An analysis of online syllabus citations to 70,700 articles published in 2003 in the journals of 12 subjects indicates that online syllabus citations were sufficiently numerous to be a useful impact indictor in some social sciences, including political science and information and library science, but not in others, nor in any sciences. This result was consistent with current social science research having, in general, more educational value than current science research. Moreover, articles frequently cited in online syllabuses were not necessarily highly cited by other articles. Hence it seems that online syllabus citations provide a valuable additional source of evidence about the impact of journals, scholars, and research articles in some social sciences.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.13, S.2060-2069
  12. Thelwall, M.; Wouters, P.; Fry, J.: Information-centered research for large-scale analyses of new information sources (2008) 0.05 
    0.05091586 = product of:
  0.10183172 = sum of:
    0.038297202 = weight(_text_:science in 1969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038297202 = score(doc=1969,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 1969, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1969)
    0.06353451 = weight(_text_:research in 1969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06353451 = score(doc=1969,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.44129837 = fieldWeight in 1969, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1969)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    New mass publishing genres, such as blogs and personal home pages provide a rich source of social data that is yet to be fully exploited by the social sciences and humanities. Information-centered research (ICR) not only provides a genuinely new and useful information science research model for this type of data, but can also contribute to the emerging e-research infrastructure. Nevertheless, ICR should not be conducted on a purely abstract level, but should relate to potentially relevant problems.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1523-1527
  13. 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) 0.05 
    0.050354127 = product of:
  0.067138836 = sum of:
    0.027355144 = weight(_text_:science in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027355144 = score(doc=995,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.0226909 = weight(_text_:research in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0226909 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.017092798 = product of:
      0.034185596 = sum of:
        0.034185596 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034185596 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = 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)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.791-810
  14. Thelwall, M.: Bibliometrics to webometrics (2009) 0.05 
    0.049543053 = product of:
  0.099086106 = sum of:
    0.054160424 = weight(_text_:science in 4239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054160424 = score(doc=4239,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 4239, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4239)
    0.044925686 = weight(_text_:research in 4239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044925686 = score(doc=4239,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.31204507 = fieldWeight in 4239, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4239)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Bibliometrics has changed out of all recognition since 1958; becoming established as a field, being taught widely in library and information science schools, and being at the core of a number of science evaluation research groups around the world. This was all made possible by the work of Eugene Garfield and his Science Citation Index. This article reviews the distance that bibliometrics has travelled since 1958 by comparing early bibliometrics with current practice, and by giving an overview of a range of recent developments, such as patent analysis, national research evaluation exercises, visualization techniques, new applications, online citation indexes, and the creation of digital libraries. Webometrics, a modern, fast-growing offshoot of bibliometrics, is reviewed in detail. Finally, future prospects are discussed with regard to both bibliometrics and webometrics.
    Source
    Information science in transition, Ed.: A. Gilchrist
  15. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? : a macrolevel study (2008) 0.05 
    0.049059443 = product of:
  0.09811889 = sum of:
    0.0473805 = weight(_text_:science in 2375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0473805 = score(doc=2375,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.3564397 = fieldWeight in 2375, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2375)
    0.05073839 = weight(_text_:research in 2375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05073839 = score(doc=2375,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.352419 = fieldWeight in 2375, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2375)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Interdisciplinary collaboration is a major goal in research policy. This study uses citation analysis to examine diverse subjects in the Web of Science and Scopus to ascertain whether, in general, research published in journals classified in more than one subject is more highly cited than research published in journals classified in a single subject. For each subject, the study divides the journals into two disjoint sets called Multi and Mono. Multi consists of all journals in the subject and at least one other subject whereas Mono consists of all journals in the subject and in no other subject. The main findings are: (a) For social science subject categories in both the Web of Science and Scopus, the average citation levels of articles in Mono and Multi are very similar; and (b) for Scopus subject categories within life sciences, health sciences, and physical sciences, the average citation level of Mono articles is roughly twice that of Multi articles. Hence, one cannot assume that in general, multidisciplinary research will be more highly cited, and the converse is probably true for many areas of science. A policy implication is that, at least in the sciences, multidisciplinary researchers should not be evaluated by citations on the same basis as monodisciplinary researchers.
    Object
    Web of Science
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.12, S.1973-1984
  16. Zuccala, A.; Thelwall, M.; Oppenheim, C.; Dhiensa, R.: Web intelligence analyses of digital libraries : a case study of the National electronic Library for Health (NeLH) (2007) 0.05 
    0.048677094 = product of:
  0.06490279 = sum of:
    0.015474406 = weight(_text_:science in 838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015474406 = score(doc=838,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 838, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=838)
    0.01815272 = weight(_text_:research in 838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01815272 = score(doc=838,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.12608525 = fieldWeight in 838, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=838)
    0.031275664 = product of:
      0.06255133 = sum of:
        0.06255133 = weight(_text_:network in 838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06255133 = score(doc=838,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.2783359 = fieldWeight in 838, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=838)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of LexiURL as a Web intelligence tool for collecting and analysing links to digital libraries, focusing specifically on the National electronic Library for Health (NeLH). Design/methodology/approach - The Web intelligence techniques in this study are a combination of link analysis (web structure mining), web server log file analysis (web usage mining), and text analysis (web content mining), utilizing the power of commercial search engines and drawing upon the information science fields of bibliometrics and webometrics. LexiURL is a computer program designed to calculate summary statistics for lists of links or URLs. Its output is a series of standard reports, for example listing and counting all of the different domain names in the data. Findings - Link data, when analysed together with user transaction log files (i.e. Web referring domains) can provide insights into who is using a digital library and when, and who could be using the digital library if they are "surfing" a particular part of the Web; in this case any site that is linked to or colinked with the NeLH. This study found that the NeLH was embedded in a multifaceted Web context, including many governmental, educational, commercial and organisational sites, with the most interesting being sites from the.edu domain, representing American Universities. Not many links directed to the NeLH were followed on September 25, 2005 (the date of the log file analysis and link extraction analysis), which means that users who access the digital library have been arriving at the site via only a few select links, bookmarks and search engine searches, or non-electronic sources. Originality/value - A number of studies concerning digital library users have been carried out using log file analysis as a research tool. Log files focus on real-time user transactions; while LexiURL can be used to extract links and colinks associated with a digital library's growing Web network. This Web network is not recognized often enough, and can be a useful indication of where potential users are surfing, even if they have not yet specifically visited the NeLH site.
  17. Thelwall, M.; Klitkou, A.; Verbeek, A.; Stuart, D.; Vincent, C.: Policy-relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields (2010) 0.05 
    0.047626484 = product of:
  0.09525297 = sum of:
    0.023211608 = weight(_text_:science in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023211608 = score(doc=3574,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
    0.07204136 = weight(_text_:research in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07204136 = score(doc=3574,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.5003853 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Despite over 10 years of research there is no agreement on the most suitable roles for Webometric indicators in support of research policy and almost no field-based Webometrics. This article partly fills these gaps by analyzing the potential of policy-relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields with the help of 4 case studies. Although Webometrics cannot provide robust indicators of knowledge flows or research impact, it can provide some evidence of networking and mutual awareness. The scope of Webometrics is also relatively wide, including not only research organizations and firms but also intermediary groups like professional associations, Web portals, and government agencies. Webometrics can, therefore, provide evidence about the research process to compliment peer review, bibliometric, and patent indicators: tracking the early, mainly prepublication development of new fields and research funding initiatives, assessing the role and impact of intermediary organizations and the need for new ones, and monitoring the extent of mutual awareness in particular research areas.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1464-1475
  18. Barjak, F.; Thelwall, M.: ¬A statistical analysis of the web presences of European life sciences research teams (2008) 0.05 
    0.04713357 = product of:
  0.09426714 = sum of:
    0.038686015 = weight(_text_:science in 1383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038686015 = score(doc=1383,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 1383, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1383)
    0.055581123 = weight(_text_:research in 1383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055581123 = score(doc=1383,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.38605565 = fieldWeight in 1383, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1383)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Web links have been used for around ten years to explore the online impact of academic information and information producers. Nevertheless, few studies have attempted to relate link counts to relevant offline attributes of the owners of the targeted Web sites, with the exception of research productivity. This article reports the results of a study to relate site inlink counts to relevant owner characteristics for over 400 European life-science research group Web sites. The analysis confirmed that research-group size and Web-presence size were important for attracting Web links, although research productivity was not. Little evidence was found for significant influence of any of an array of factors, including research-group leader gender and industry connections. In addition, the choice of search engine for link data created a surprising international difference in the results, with Google perhaps giving unreliable results. Overall, the data collection, statistical analysis and results interpretation were all complex and it seems that we still need to know more about search engines, hyperlinks, and their function in science before we can draw conclusions on their usefulness and role in the canon of science and technology indicators.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.4, S.628-643
  19. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? : An analysis of mendeley readers (2015) 0.05 
    0.04713357 = product of:
  0.09426714 = sum of:
    0.038686015 = weight(_text_:science in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038686015 = score(doc=1850,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 1850, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1850)
    0.055581123 = weight(_text_:research in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055581123 = score(doc=1850,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.38605565 = fieldWeight in 1850, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1850)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.6, S.1124-1135
  20. Thelwall, M.; Harries, G.: ¬The connection between the research of a university and counts of links to its Web pages : an investigation based upon a classification of the relationships of pages to the research of the host university (2003) 0.05 
    0.04530736 = product of:
  0.09061472 = sum of:
    0.027080212 = weight(_text_:science in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027080212 = score(doc=1676,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 1676, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1676)
    0.06353451 = weight(_text_:research in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06353451 = score(doc=1676,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.44129837 = fieldWeight in 1676, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1676)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Results from recent advances in link metrics have demonstrated that the hyperlink structure of national university systems can be strongly related to the research productivity of the individual institutions. This paper uses a page categorization to show that restricting the metrics to subsets more closely related to the research of the host university can produce even stronger associations. A partial overlap was also found between the effects of applying advanced document models and separating page types, but the best results were achieved through a combination of the two.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.7, S.594-602

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 109
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 109
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications