Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × theme_ss:"Internet"
  1. Sugimoto, C.R.; Work, S.; Larivière, V.; Haustein, S.: Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics : A review of the literature (2017) 0.01
    0.0071777035 = product of:
      0.10048784 = sum of:
        0.10048784 = weight(_text_:media in 3781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10048784 = score(doc=3781,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = queryNorm
            0.76056594 = fieldWeight in 3781, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3781)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    Social media has become integrated into the fabric of the scholarly communication system in fundamental ways, principally through scholarly use of social media platforms and the promotion of new indicators on the basis of interactions with these platforms. Research and scholarship in this area has accelerated since the coining and subsequent advocacy for altmetrics-that is, research indicators based on social media activity. This review provides an extensive account of the state-of-the art in both scholarly use of social media and altmetrics. The review consists of 2 main parts: the first examines the use of social media in academia, reviewing the various functions these platforms have in the scholarly communication process and the factors that affect this use. The second part reviews empirical studies of altmetrics, discussing the various interpretations of altmetrics, data collection and methodological limitations, and differences according to platform. The review ends with a critical discussion of the implications of this transformation in the scholarly communication system.
  2. Stuart, D.: Web metrics for library and information professionals (2014) 0.00
    0.0034186658 = product of:
      0.04786132 = sum of:
        0.04786132 = weight(_text_:media in 2274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04786132 = score(doc=2274,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = queryNorm
            0.3622497 = fieldWeight in 2274, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2274)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    This is a practical guide to using web metrics to measure impact and demonstrate value. The web provides an opportunity to collect a host of different metrics, from those associated with social media accounts and websites to more traditional research outputs. This book is a clear guide for library and information professionals as to what web metrics are available and how to assess and use them to make informed decisions and demonstrate value. As individuals and organizations increasingly use the web in addition to traditional publishing avenues and formats, this book provides the tools to unlock web metrics and evaluate the impact of this content. The key topics covered include: bibliometrics, webometrics and web metrics; data collection tools; evaluating impact on the web; evaluating social media impact; investigating relationships between actors; exploring traditional publications in a new environment; web metrics and the web of data; the future of web metrics and the library and information professional. The book will provide a practical introduction to web metrics for a wide range of library and information professionals, from the bibliometrician wanting to demonstrate the wider impact of a researcher's work than can be demonstrated through traditional citations databases, to the reference librarian wanting to measure how successfully they are engaging with their users on Twitter. It will be a valuable tool for anyone who wants to not only understand the impact of content, but demonstrate this impact to others within the organization and beyond.
    Content
    1. Introduction. MetricsIndicators -- Web metrics and Ranganathan's laws of library science -- Web metrics for the library and information professional -- The aim of this book -- The structure of the rest of this book -- 2. Bibliometrics, webometrics and web metrics. Web metrics -- Information science metrics -- Web analytics -- Relational and evaluative metrics -- Evaluative web metrics -- Relational web metrics -- Validating the results -- 3. Data collection tools. The anatomy of a URL, web links and the structure of the web -- Search engines 1.0 -- Web crawlers -- Search engines 2.0 -- Post search engine 2.0: fragmentation -- 4. Evaluating impact on the web. Websites -- Blogs -- Wikis -- Internal metrics -- External metrics -- A systematic approach to content analysis -- 5. Evaluating social media impact. Aspects of social network sites -- Typology of social network sites -- Research and tools for specific sites and services -- Other social network sites -- URL shorteners: web analytic links on any site -- General social media impact -- Sentiment analysis -- 6. Investigating relationships between actors. Social network analysis methods -- Sources for relational network analysis -- 7. Exploring traditional publications in a new environment. More bibliographic items -- Full text analysis -- Greater context -- 8. Web metrics and the web of data. The web of data -- Building the semantic web -- Implications of the web of data for web metrics -- Investigating the web of data today -- SPARQL -- Sindice -- LDSpider: an RDF web crawler -- 9. The future of web metrics and the library and information professional. How far we have come -- The future of web metrics -- The future of the library and information professional and web metrics.
  3. Wouters, P.; Vries, R. de: Formally citing the Web (2004) 0.00
    0.002762699 = product of:
      0.038677786 = sum of:
        0.038677786 = weight(_text_:media in 3093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038677786 = score(doc=3093,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = queryNorm
            0.29274195 = fieldWeight in 3093, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3093)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    How do authors refer to Web-based information sources in their formal scientific publications? It is not yet weIl known how scientists and scholars actually include new types of information sources, available through the new media, in their published work. This article reports an a comparative study of the lists of references in 38 scientific journals in five different scientific and social scientific fields. The fields are sociology, library and information science, biochemistry and biotechnology, neuroscience, and the mathematics of computing. As is weIl known, references, citations, and hyperlinks play different roles in academic publishing and communication. Our study focuses an hyperlinks as attributes of references in formal scholarly publications. The study developed and applied a method to analyze the differential roles of publishing media in the analysis of scientific and scholarly literature references. The present secondary databases that include reference and citation data (the Web of Science) cannot be used for this type of research. By the automated processing and analysis of the full text of scientific and scholarly articles, we were able to extract the references and hyperlinks contained in these references in relation to other features of the scientific and scholarly literature. Our findings show that hyperlinking references are indeed, as expected, abundantly present in the formal literature. They also tend to cite more recent literature than the average reference. The large majority of the references are to Web instances of traditional scientific journals. Other types of Web-based information sources are less weIl represented in the lists of references, except in the case of pure e-journals. We conclude that this can be explained by taking the role of the publisher into account. Indeed, it seems that the shift from print-based to electronic publishing has created new roles for the publisher. By shaping the way scientific references are hyperlinking to other information sources, the publisher may have a large impact an the availability of scientific and scholarly information.
  4. Kuperman, V.: Productivity in the Internet mailing lists : a bibliometric analysis (2006) 0.00
    0.0024419043 = product of:
      0.034186658 = sum of:
        0.034186658 = weight(_text_:media in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034186658 = score(doc=4907,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = queryNorm
            0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    The author examines patterns of productivity in the Internet mailing lists, also known as discussion lists or discussion groups. Datasets have been collected from electronic archives of two Internet mailing lists, the LINGUIST and the History of the English Language. Theoretical models widely used in informetric research have been applied to fit the distribution of posted messages over the population of authors. The Generalized Inverse Poisson-Gaussian and Poisson-lognormal distributions show excellent results in both datasets, while Lotka and Yule-Simon distribution demonstrate poor-to-mediocre fits. In the mailing list where moderation and quality control are enforced to a higher degree, i.e., the LINGUIST, Lotka, and Yule-Simon distributions perform better. The findings can be plausibly explained by the lesser applicability of the success-breedssuccess model to the information production in the electronic communication media, such as Internet mailing lists, where selectivity of publications is marginal or nonexistent. The hypothesis is preliminary, and needs to be validated against the larger variety of datasets. Characteristics of the quality control, competitiveness, and the reward structure in Internet mailing lists as compared to professional scholarly journals are discussed.
  5. Zhang, Y.: ¬The impact of Internet-based electronic resources on formal scholarly communication in the area of library and information science : a citation analysis (1998) 0.00
    9.651475E-4 = product of:
      0.013512065 = sum of:
        0.013512065 = product of:
          0.02702413 = sum of:
            0.02702413 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02702413 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02820796 = queryNorm
                0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2808, 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=2808)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Date
    30. 1.1999 17:22:22
  6. Neth, M.: Citation analysis and the Web (1998) 0.00
    9.554473E-4 = product of:
      0.013376262 = sum of:
        0.013376262 = product of:
          0.026752524 = sum of:
            0.026752524 = weight(_text_:22 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026752524 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02820796 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 108, 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=108)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Date
    10. 1.1999 16:22:37
  7. Tonta, Y.: Scholarly communication and the use of networked information sources (1996) 0.00
    8.1895484E-4 = product of:
      0.011465367 = sum of:
        0.011465367 = product of:
          0.022930734 = sum of:
            0.022930734 = weight(_text_:22 in 6389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022930734 = score(doc=6389,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02820796 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6389, 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=6389)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Source
    IFLA journal. 22(1996) no.3, S.240-245
  8. Zhang, Y.; Jansen, B.J.; Spink, A.: Identification of factors predicting clickthrough in Web searching using neural network analysis (2009) 0.00
    8.1895484E-4 = product of:
      0.011465367 = sum of:
        0.011465367 = product of:
          0.022930734 = sum of:
            0.022930734 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022930734 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02820796 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:49:11