-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.02
0.02156037 = product of:
0.06468111 = sum of:
0.06468111 = product of:
0.09702166 = sum of:
0.06750664 = weight(_text_:network in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06750664 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
0.043569047 = 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)
0.029515022 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029515022 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043569047 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
- Social Science Research Network
-
Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017)
0.02
0.01716654 = product of:
0.051499616 = sum of:
0.051499616 = product of:
0.07724942 = sum of:
0.047734402 = weight(_text_:network in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047734402 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
0.043569047 = queryNorm
0.2460165 = fieldWeight in 4410, 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=4410)
0.029515022 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029515022 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043569047 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4410, 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=4410)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between dissemination of research papers on Twitter and its influence on research impact. Design/methodology/approach Four types of journal Twitter accounts (journal, owner, publisher and no Twitter account) were defined to observe differences in the number of tweets and citations. In total, 4,176 articles from 350 journals were extracted from Plum Analytics. This altmetric provider tracks the number of tweets and citations for each paper. Student's t-test for two-paired samples was used to detect significant differences between each group of journals. Regression analysis was performed to detect which variables may influence the getting of tweets and citations. Findings The results show that journals with their own Twitter account obtain more tweets (46 percent) and citations (34 percent) than journals without a Twitter account. Followers is the variable that attracts more tweets (ß=0.47) and citations (ß=0.28) but the effect is small and the fit is not good for tweets (R2=0.46) and insignificant for citations (R2=0.18). Originality/value This is the first study that tests the performance of research journals on Twitter according to their handles, observing how the dissemination of content in this microblogging network influences the citation of their papers.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Zheng, H.; Aung, H.H.; Erdt, M.; Peng, T.-Q.; Raamkumar, A.S.; Theng, Y.-L.: Social media presence of scholarly journals (2019)
0.01
0.0053038225 = product of:
0.015911467 = sum of:
0.015911467 = product of:
0.047734402 = sum of:
0.047734402 = weight(_text_:network in 4987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047734402 = score(doc=4987,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
0.043569047 = queryNorm
0.2460165 = fieldWeight in 4987, 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=4987)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
-
Bläsi, C.: Literary studies, business studies - and information science? : Yes, it's a key discipline for the empowerment of publishing studies for the digital age (2015)
0.01
0.0052947453 = product of:
0.015884236 = sum of:
0.015884236 = product of:
0.047652703 = sum of:
0.047652703 = weight(_text_:29 in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047652703 = score(doc=2986,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.043569047 = queryNorm
0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2986, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2986)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 6. 6.2016 10:29:10
-
Benoit, G.; Hussey, L.: Repurposing digital objects : case studies across the publishing industry (2011)
0.00
0.004591226 = product of:
0.013773678 = sum of:
0.013773678 = product of:
0.04132103 = sum of:
0.04132103 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04132103 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043569047 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:23:07
-
Brown, D.J.: Repositories and journals: are they in conflict? : a literature review of relevant literature (2010)
0.00
0.003309216 = product of:
0.009927647 = sum of:
0.009927647 = product of:
0.029782942 = sum of:
0.029782942 = weight(_text_:29 in 3954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029782942 = score(doc=3954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.043569047 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3954)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 29. 8.2010 12:35:08
-
Solomon, D.J.; Björk, B.-C.: Publication fees in open access publishing : sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal (2012)
0.00
0.003309216 = product of:
0.009927647 = sum of:
0.009927647 = product of:
0.029782942 = sum of:
0.029782942 = weight(_text_:29 in 754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029782942 = score(doc=754,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.043569047 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 754, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=754)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 4.2013 18:29:36
-
Björk, B.-C.; Laakso, M.; Welling, P.; Paetau, P.: Anatomy of green open access (2014)
0.00
0.003309216 = product of:
0.009927647 = sum of:
0.009927647 = product of:
0.029782942 = sum of:
0.029782942 = weight(_text_:29 in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029782942 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.043569047 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 29. 1.2014 16:10:46
-
Cabanac, G.: Bibliogifts in LibGen? : a study of a text-sharing platform driven by biblioleaks and crowdsourcing (2016)
0.00
0.003309216 = product of:
0.009927647 = sum of:
0.009927647 = product of:
0.029782942 = sum of:
0.029782942 = weight(_text_:29 in 2850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029782942 = score(doc=2850,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.043569047 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2850, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2850)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Research articles disseminate the knowledge produced by the scientific community. Access to this literature is crucial for researchers and the general public. Apparently, "bibliogifts" are available online for free from text-sharing platforms. However, little is known about such platforms. What is the size of the underlying digital libraries? What are the topics covered? Where do these documents originally come from? This article reports on a study of the Library Genesis platform (LibGen). The 25 million documents (42 terabytes) it hosts and distributes for free are mostly research articles, textbooks, and books in English. The article collection stems from isolated, but massive, article uploads (71%) in line with a "biblioleaks" scenario, as well as from daily crowdsourcing (29%) by worldwide users of platforms such as Reddit Scholar and Sci-Hub. By relating the DOIs registered at CrossRef and those cached at LibGen, this study reveals that 36% of all DOI articles are available for free at LibGen. This figure is even higher (68%) for three major publishers: Elsevier, Springer, and Wiley. More research is needed to understand to what extent researchers and the general public have recourse to such text-sharing platforms and why.
-
Vincent-Lamarre, P.; Boivin, J.; Gargouri, Y.; Larivière, V.; Harnad, S.: Estimating open access mandate effectiveness : the MELIBEA score (2016)
0.00
0.003309216 = product of:
0.009927647 = sum of:
0.009927647 = product of:
0.029782942 = sum of:
0.029782942 = weight(_text_:29 in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029782942 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.043569047 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 18.10.2016 14:29:07
-
Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011)
0.00
0.003279447 = product of:
0.009838341 = sum of:
0.009838341 = product of:
0.029515022 = sum of:
0.029515022 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029515022 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043569047 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.
-
Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016)
0.00
0.003279447 = product of:
0.009838341 = sum of:
0.009838341 = product of:
0.029515022 = sum of:
0.029515022 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029515022 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043569047 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 14:11:17
-
Somers, J.: Torching the modern-day library of Alexandria : somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them. (2017)
0.00
0.0026235576 = product of:
0.007870672 = sum of:
0.007870672 = product of:
0.023612017 = sum of:
0.023612017 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023612017 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043569047 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.
-
Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017)
0.00
0.0026235576 = product of:
0.007870672 = sum of:
0.007870672 = product of:
0.023612017 = sum of:
0.023612017 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023612017 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043569047 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Engels, T.C.E; Istenic Starcic, A.; Kulczycki, E.; Pölönen, J.; Sivertsen, G.: Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities? (2018)
0.00
0.0026235576 = product of:
0.007870672 = sum of:
0.007870672 = product of:
0.023612017 = sum of:
0.023612017 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023612017 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043569047 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
