Search (87 results, page 5 of 5)

0.0027233788 = product of:
  0.013616893 = sum of:
    0.013616893 = product of:
      0.027233787 = sum of:
        0.027233787 = weight(_text_:web in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027233787 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study presents a large-scale analysis of the distribution and presence of Mendeley readership scores over time and across disciplines. We study whether Mendeley readership scores (RS) can identify highly cited publications more effectively than journal citation scores (JCS). Web of Science (WoS) publications with digital object identifiers (DOIs) published during the period 2004-2013 and across five major scientific fields were analyzed. The main result of this study shows that RS are more effective (in terms of precision/recall values) than JCS to identify highly cited publications across all fields of science and publication years. The findings also show that 86.5% of all the publications are covered by Mendeley and have at least one reader. Also, the share of publications with Mendeley RS is increasing from 84% in 2004 to 89% in 2009, and decreasing from 88% in 2010 to 82% in 2013. However, it is noted that publications from 2010 onwards exhibit on average a higher density of readership versus citation scores. This indicates that compared to citation scores, RS are more prevalent for recent publications and hence they could work as an early indicator of research impact. These findings highlight the potential and value of Mendeley as a tool for scientometric purposes and particularly as a relevant tool to identify highly cited publications.

0.0027233788 = product of:
  0.013616893 = sum of:
    0.013616893 = product of:
      0.027233787 = sum of:
        0.027233787 = weight(_text_:web in 4987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027233787 = score(doc=4987,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4987, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4987)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.0027233788 = product of:
  0.013616893 = sum of:
    0.013616893 = product of:
      0.027233787 = sum of:
        0.027233787 = weight(_text_:web in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027233787 = score(doc=647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper investigates whether free access to scientific literature increases the participation of under-represented groups in scientific discourse. To this end, we aggregate and match data tracing access to Sci-Hub, a widely used black open access (OA) repository or shadow library, and publication data from the Web of Science (WoS). We treat the emergence of Sci-Hub as an exogenous event granting relatively unrestricted access to publications, which are otherwise hidden behind a paywall. We analyze changes in the publication count of researchers from developing countries in a given journal as a proxy for general participation in scientific discourse. Our results indicate that in the exemplary field of mathematics, free access to academic knowledge is likely to improve the representation of authors from developing countries in international journals. Assuming the desirability of greater international diversity in science (e.g., to generate more original work, reproduce empirical findings in different settings, or shift the research focus toward topics that are overlooked by researchers from more developed countries), our findings lend evidence to the claim of the OA movement that scientific knowledge should be free and widely distributed.

0.0025085227 = product of:
  0.012542613 = sum of:
    0.012542613 = product of:
      0.025085226 = sum of:
        0.025085226 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025085226 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0025085227 = product of:
  0.012542613 = sum of:
    0.012542613 = product of:
      0.025085226 = sum of:
        0.025085226 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025085226 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.002178703 = product of:
  0.010893514 = sum of:
    0.010893514 = product of:
      0.021787029 = sum of:
        0.021787029 = weight(_text_:web in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021787029 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 3589, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitt VÖB 63(2010) H.1/2, S.149-155 (B. Bauer): "Wie schon die erste Auflage thematisiert auch die neue, deutlich erweitere Ausgabe den Wandel vom traditionellen Publikationsmodell (print-only) zu einem hybriden (print and digital) bzw. zu einem ausschließlich elektronischen Publikationsmodell. Aufgrund der rasanten Entwicklung des elektronischen Publikationssektors in den letzten zehn Jahren wurde eine Überarbeitung erforderlich. So war etwa in der ersten Auflage die Bedeutung der CD-ROM-Technologie übertrieben dargestellt worden, während die Auswirkungen des Internet und des Web unterschätzt worden waren. Brown & Boulderstone beschreiben in ihrem Buch, wie das Thema "elektronisches Publizieren" Verlage und Bibliotheken in den letzten Jahren in mehreren Phasen beeinflusst hat: In Phase 1 - von den frühen 1990er Jahren bis zum Erscheinen der ersten Auflage 1996 - gab es zwar schon elektronische Medien, aber noch dominierten gedruckte Medien. Phase 2 - von Mitte der 1990er Jahre bis zu den frühen 2000er Jahren - war eine Periode der Konfusion, die durch das Erscheinen des Internet und durch die damit einhergehenden neuen Möglichkeiten verursacht wurde. Phase 3 - seit den frühen 2000er Jahren - ist gekennzeichnet von einem starken Aufschwung des elektronischen Publizierens; der Stellenwert der digitalen hat gegenüber den entsprechenden analogen Versionen deutlich zugenommen. In diesem Abschnitt werden, gegliedert in drei Kategorien, 14 Einflussfaktoren, die die Entwicklung hin zum elektronischen Publizieren beschleunigen, vorgestellt.

0.0013616894 = product of:
  0.0068084467 = sum of:
    0.0068084467 = product of:
      0.013616893 = sum of:
        0.013616893 = weight(_text_:web in 298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013616893 = score(doc=298,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.09014259 = fieldWeight in 298, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=298)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.9, S.1386 (L.A. Ennis): "Written by John Willinsky. Pacific Press Professor of Literacy and Technology at the University of British Columbia and Open Journals Systems Software des eloper. the eighth hook in the Digital Libraries and Electronic Publishing series (edited by William Y. Arms) provides a compelling and convincing argument in favor of open access. At the core of this work is Willinsky's "access principle." a commitment that "research carries with it a responsibility to extend circulation of such work as far as possible and ideally to all who are interested in it and all who might profit from it" (p.xii). One by one Willinsky tackles the obstacles. both real and perceived, to open access. succeeding in his goal to "inform and inspire a larger debate over the political and moral economy of knowledge" (p.xiv). The author does note the irony of publishing a hook while advocating for open access, but points out that he does so to reach a larger audience. Willinsky also points out that most of the chapters' earlier versions can be found in open-access journals and on his Web site (http://www.11ed.educubc.ca/faculty/willinsky.html). The Access Principle is organized topically into thirteen chapters covering a broad range of practical and theoretical issues. Taken together. these chapters provide the reader with an excellent introduction to the open-access debate as well as all the potential benefits and possible impacts of the open-access movement. The author also includes six appendices. with information on metadata and indexing. os er twenty pages of references, and an index. ... All of Willinsky's arguments arc convincing and heartfelt. It is apparent throughout the hook that the author deeply believes in the principles behind open access. and his passion and conviction come through in the work. making the hook a thought-provoking and very interesting read. While he offers numerous examples to illustrate his points throughout the work. he does not. however. offer solutions or state that he has all the answers. In that, he succeeds in his goal to craft a hook that "informs and inspires. As a result, The Access Principle is an important read for information professionals, researchers, and academics of all kinds, whether or not the reader agrees with Willinsky."