Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Theng, Y.-L."
  1. Zheng, H.; Aung, H.H.; Erdt, M.; Peng, T.-Q.; Raamkumar, A.S.; Theng, Y.-L.: Social media presence of scholarly journals (2019) 0.03
    0.0321699 = product of:
      0.1286796 = sum of:
        0.1286796 = weight(_text_:social in 4987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1286796 = score(doc=4987,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.69660133 = fieldWeight in 4987, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4987)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Recently, social media has become a potentially new way for scholarly journals to disseminate and evaluate research outputs. Scholarly journals have started promoting their research articles to a wide range of audiences via social media platforms. This article aims to investigate the social media presence of scholarly journals across disciplines. We extracted journals from Web of Science and searched for the social media presence of these journals on Facebook and Twitter. Relevant metrics and content relating to the journals' social media accounts were also crawled for data analysis. From our results, the social media presence of scholarly journals lies between 7.1% and 14.2% across disciplines; and it has shown a steady increase in the last decade. The popularity of scholarly journals on social media is distinct across disciplines. Further, we investigated whether social media metrics of journals can predict the Journal Impact Factor (JIF). We found that the number of followers and disciplines have significant effects on the JIF. In addition, a word co-occurrence network analysis was also conducted to identify popular topics discussed by scholarly journals on social media platforms. Finally, we highlight challenges and issues faced in this study and discuss future research directions.
  2. Aung, H.H.; Zheng, H.; Erdt, M.; Aw, A.S.; Sin, S.-C.J.; Theng, Y.-L.: Investigating familiarity and usage of traditional metrics and altmetrics (2019) 0.02
    0.017620182 = product of:
      0.07048073 = sum of:
        0.07048073 = weight(_text_:social in 5328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07048073 = score(doc=5328,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.3815443 = fieldWeight in 5328, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5328)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    As the online dissemination of scholarly outputs gets faster and easier, altmetrics, social media based indices, have emerged alongside traditional metrics for research evaluation. In a two-phase survey, we investigate scholars' familiarity and usage of traditional metrics and altmetrics. In this paper, we present the second phase with 448 participants. We found few traditional metrics, like the Journal Impact Factor and number of citations, are familiar to and often used by scholars for research evaluation. Among altmetrics, only views/downloads, readers, and followers are known to more than half the respondents. Unseen benefits and lack of time are hindrances to using metrics for the evaluation of research outputs. Although social media are well-known, scholars prefer promoting their research by publishing in journals and attending conferences. We found social media usage, perceived ease of use and usefulness of altmetrics affect the usage of altmetrics. Findings suggest altmetrics have attracted attention in academia and could be considered complementary to traditional metrics. We acknowledge that due to the limited sample size, statistics and demographics in this study, findings cannot be said to be representative of the entire academic population worldwide. Future studies are needed that cover a wider range of academic disciplines around the world.
  3. Lee, S.-S.; Theng, Y.-L.; Goh, D.H.-L.: Creative information seeking : part II: empirical verification (2007) 0.00
    0.004707306 = product of:
      0.018829225 = sum of:
        0.018829225 = product of:
          0.03765845 = sum of:
            0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03765845 = score(doc=813,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 813, 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=813)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    23.12.2007 12:22:16