-
Wiggers, G.; Verberne, S.; Loon, W. van; Zwenne, G.-J.: Bibliometric-enhanced legal information retrieval : combining usage and citations as flavors of impact relevance (2023)
0.02
0.017257415 = product of:
0.051772244 = sum of:
0.051772244 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051772244 = score(doc=1022,freq=8.0), product of:
0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211275 = queryNorm
0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1022, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1022)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Bibliometric-enhanced information retrieval uses bibliometrics (e.g., citations) to improve ranking algorithms. Using a data-driven approach, this article describes the development of a bibliometric-enhanced ranking algorithm for legal information retrieval, and the evaluation thereof. We statistically analyze the correlation between usage of documents and citations over time, using data from a commercial legal search engine. We then propose a bibliometric boost function that combines usage of documents with citation counts. The core of this function is an impact variable based on usage and citations that increases in influence as citations and usage counts become more reliable over time. We evaluate our ranking function by comparing search sessions before and after the introduction of the new ranking in the search engine. Using a cost model applied to 129,571 sessions before and 143,864 sessions after the intervention, we show that our bibliometric-enhanced ranking algorithm reduces the time of a search session of legal professionals by 2 to 3% on average for use cases other than known-item retrieval or updating behavior. Given the high hourly tariff of legal professionals and the limited time they can spend on research, this is expected to lead to increased efficiency, especially for users with extremely long search sessions.
-
Fang, Z.; Dudek, J.; Costas, R.: Facing the volatility of tweets in altmetric research (2022)
0.01
0.010354449 = product of:
0.031063346 = sum of:
0.031063346 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031063346 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211275 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The data re-collection for tweets from data snapshots is a common methodological step in Twitter-based research. Understanding better the volatility of tweets over time is important for validating the reliability of metrics based on Twitter data. We tracked a set of 37,918 original scholarly tweets mentioning COVID-19-related research daily for 56 days and captured the reasons for the changes in their availability over time. Results show that the proportion of unavailable tweets increased from 1.6 to 2.6% in the time window observed. Of the 1,323 tweets that became unavailable at some point in the period observed, 30.5% became available again afterwards. "Revived" tweets resulted mainly from the unprotecting, reactivating, or unsuspending of users' accounts. Our findings highlight the importance of noting this dynamic nature of Twitter data in altmetric research and testify to the challenges that this poses for the retrieval, processing, and interpretation of Twitter data about scientific papers.
-
Järvelin, K.; Vakkari, P.: LIS research across 50 years: content analysis of journal articles : offering an information-centric conception of memes (2022)
0.01
0.008628707 = product of:
0.025886122 = sum of:
0.025886122 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025886122 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211275 = queryNorm
0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose This paper analyses the research in Library and Information Science (LIS) and reports on (1) the status of LIS research in 2015 and (2) on the evolution of LIS research longitudinally from 1965 to 2015. Design/methodology/approach The study employs a quantitative intellectual content analysis of articles published in 30+ scholarly LIS journals, following the design by Tuomaala et al. (2014). In the content analysis, we classify articles along eight dimensions covering topical content and methodology. Findings The topical findings indicate that the earlier strong LIS emphasis on L&I services has declined notably, while scientific and professional communication has become the most popular topic. Information storage and retrieval has given up its earlier strong position towards the end of the years analyzed. Individuals are increasingly the units of observation. End-user's and developer's viewpoints have strengthened at the cost of intermediaries' viewpoint. LIS research is methodologically increasingly scattered since survey, scientometric methods, experiment, case studies and qualitative studies have all gained in popularity. Consequently, LIS may have become more versatile in the analysis of its research objects during the years analyzed. Originality/value Among quantitative intellectual content analyses of LIS research, the study is unique in its scope: length of analysis period (50 years), width (8 dimensions covering topical content and methodology) and depth (the annual batch of 30+ scholarly journals).
-
Manley, S.: Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics (2022)
0.01
0.008094825 = product of:
0.024284473 = sum of:
0.024284473 = product of:
0.048568945 = sum of:
0.048568945 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048568945 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211275 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, 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=547)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 6. 4.2022 19:22:26
-
Lorentzen, D.G.: Bridging polarised Twitter discussions : the interactions of the users in the middle (2021)
0.01
0.006938421 = product of:
0.020815263 = sum of:
0.020815263 = product of:
0.041630525 = sum of:
0.041630525 = weight(_text_:22 in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041630525 = score(doc=182,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211275 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 182, 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=182)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Milard, B.; Pitarch, Y.: Egocentric cocitation networks and scientific papers destinies (2023)
0.01
0.006938421 = product of:
0.020815263 = sum of:
0.020815263 = product of:
0.041630525 = sum of:
0.041630525 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041630525 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211275 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, 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=918)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 21. 3.2023 19:22:14
-
Zhao, D.; Strotmann, A.: Mapping knowledge domains on Wikipedia : an author bibliographic coupling analysis of traditional Chinese medicine (2022)
0.01
0.006902966 = product of:
0.020708898 = sum of:
0.020708898 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020708898 = score(doc=608,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211275 = queryNorm
0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 608, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=608)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose Wikipedia has the lofty goal of compiling all human knowledge. The purpose of the present study is to map the structure of the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) knowledge domain on Wikipedia, to identify patterns of knowledge representation on Wikipedia and to test the applicability of author bibliographic coupling analysis, an effective method for mapping knowledge domains represented in published scholarly documents, for Wikipedia data. Design/methodology/approach We adapted and followed the well-established procedures and techniques for author bibliographic coupling analysis (ABCA). Instead of bibliographic data from a citation database, we used all articles on TCM downloaded from the English version of Wikipedia as our dataset. An author bibliographic coupling network was calculated and then factor analyzed using SPSS. Factor analysis results were visualized. Factors were labeled upon manual examination of articles that authors who load primarily in each factor have significantly contributed references to. Clear factors were interpreted as topics. Findings Seven TCM topic areas are represented on Wikipedia, among which Acupuncture-related practices, Falun Gong and Herbal Medicine attracted the most significant contributors to TCM. Acupuncture and Qi Gong have the most connections to the TCM knowledge domain and also serve as bridges for other topics to connect to the domain. Herbal medicine is weakly linked to and non-herbal medicine is isolated from the rest of the TCM knowledge domain. It appears that specific topics are represented well on Wikipedia but their conceptual connections are not. ABCA is effective for mapping knowledge domains on Wikipedia but document-based bibliographic coupling analysis is not. Originality/value Given the prominent position of Wikipedia for both information users and for researchers on knowledge organization and information retrieval, it is important to study how well knowledge is represented and structured on Wikipedia. Such studies appear largely missing although studies from different perspectives both about Wikipedia and using Wikipedia as data are abundant. Author bibliographic coupling analysis is effective for mapping knowledge domains represented in published scholarly documents but has never been applied to mapping knowledge domains represented on Wikipedia.
-
Zhao, D.; Strotmann, A.: Intellectual structure of information science 2011-2020 : an author co-citation analysis (2022)
0.01
0.006902966 = product of:
0.020708898 = sum of:
0.020708898 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020708898 = score(doc=610,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211275 = queryNorm
0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 610, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=610)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose This study continues a long history of author co-citation analysis of the intellectual structure of information science into the time period of 2011-2020. It also examines changes in this structure from 2006-2010 through 2011-2015 to 2016-2020. Results will contribute to a better understanding of the information science research field. Design/methodology/approach The well-established procedures and techniques for author co-citation analysis were followed. Full records of research articles in core information science journals published during 2011-2020 were retrieved and downloaded from the Web of Science database. About 150 most highly cited authors in each of the two five-year time periods were selected from this dataset to represent this field, and their co-citation counts were calculated. Each co-citation matrix was input into SPSS for factor analysis, and results were visualized in Pajek. Factors were interpreted as specialties and labeled upon an examination of articles written by authors who load primarily on each factor. Findings The two-camp structure of information science continued to be present clearly. Bibliometric indicators for research evaluation dominated the Knowledge Domain Analysis camp during both fivr-year time periods, whereas interactive information retrieval (IR) dominated the IR camp during 2011-2015 but shared dominance with information behavior during 2016-2020. Bridging between the two camps became increasingly weaker and was only provided by the scholarly communication specialty during 2016-2020. The IR systems specialty drifted further away from the IR camp. The information behavior specialty experienced a deep slump during 2011-2020 in its evolution process. Altmetrics grew to dominate the Webometrics specialty and brought it to a sharp increase during 2016-2020. Originality/value Author co-citation analysis (ACA) is effective in revealing intellectual structures of research fields. Most related studies used term-based methods to identify individual research topics but did not examine the interrelationships between these topics or the overall structure of the field. The few studies that did discuss the overall structure paid little attention to the effect of changes to the source journals on the results. The present study does not have these problems and continues the long history of benchmark contributions to a better understanding of the information science field using ACA.
-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.01
0.0057820175 = product of:
0.017346052 = sum of:
0.017346052 = product of:
0.034692105 = sum of:
0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034692105 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211275 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Wang, S.; Ma, Y.; Mao, J.; Bai, Y.; Liang, Z.; Li, G.: Quantifying scientific breakthroughs by a novel disruption indicator based on knowledge entities : On the rise of scrape-and-report scholarship in online reviews research (2023)
0.01
0.0057820175 = product of:
0.017346052 = sum of:
0.017346052 = product of:
0.034692105 = sum of:
0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034692105 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211275 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 882, 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=882)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 1.2023 18:37:33
-
Cerda-Cosme, R.; Méndez, E.: Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19 : a first approach (2023)
0.01
0.0057820175 = product of:
0.017346052 = sum of:
0.017346052 = product of:
0.034692105 = sum of:
0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034692105 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211275 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 916, 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=916)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 21. 3.2023 19:22:02
-
Asubiaro, T.V.; Onaolapo, S.: ¬A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef (2023)
0.01
0.0057820175 = product of:
0.017346052 = sum of:
0.017346052 = product of:
0.034692105 = sum of:
0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034692105 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211275 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 14:09:06
-
Zhang, Y.; Wu, M.; Zhang, G.; Lu, J.: Stepping beyond your comfort zone : diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation (2023)
0.01
0.0057820175 = product of:
0.017346052 = sum of:
0.017346052 = product of:
0.034692105 = sum of:
0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034692105 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211275 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:07:12
-
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)
0.01
0.0057820175 = product of:
0.017346052 = sum of:
0.017346052 = product of:
0.034692105 = sum of:
0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034692105 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211275 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
-
Vakkari, P.; Järvelin, K.; Chang, Y.-W.: ¬The association of disciplinary background with the evolution of topics and methods in Library and Information Science research 1995-2015 (2023)
0.01
0.0057820175 = product of:
0.017346052 = sum of:
0.017346052 = product of:
0.034692105 = sum of:
0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034692105 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211275 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:15:06
