Search (1118 results, page 56 of 56)

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 1401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=1401,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 1401, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1401)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to claim that it is useful to assess the web connectivity of research groups, describe hyperlink-based techniques to achieve this and present brief details of European life sciences research groups as a case study. Design/methodology/approach - A commercial search engine was harnessed to deliver hyperlink data via its automatic query submission interface. A special purpose link analysis tool, LexiURL, then summarised and graphed the link data in appropriate ways. Findings - Webometrics can provide a wide range of descriptive information about the international connectivity of research groups. Research limitations/implications - Only one field was analysed, data was taken from only one search engine, and the results were not validated. Practical implications - Web connectivity seems to be particularly important for attracting overseas job applicants and to promote research achievements and capabilities, and hence we contend that it can be useful for national and international governments to use webometrics to ensure that the web is being used effectively by research groups. Originality/value - This is the first paper to make a case for the value of using a range of webometric techniques to evaluate the web presences of research groups within a field, and possibly the first "applied" webometrics study produced for an external contract.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 1722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=1722,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 1722, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1722)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Hirsch's (2005) h index of scholarly output has generated substantial interest and wide acceptance because of its apparent ability to quantify scholarly impact simply and accurately. We show that the excitement surrounding h is premature for three reasons: h stagnates with increasing scientific age; it is highly dependent on publication quantity; and it is highly dependent on field-specific citation rates. Thus, it is not useful for comparing scholars across disciplines. We propose the scholarly index of quality and productivity (IQp) as an alternative to h. The new index takes into account a scholar's total impact and also corrects for field-specific citation rates, scholarly productivity, and scientific age. The IQp accurately predicts group membership on a common metric, as tested on a sample of 80 scholars from three populations: (a) Nobel winners in physics (n = 10), chemistry (n = 10), medicine (n = 10), and economics (n = 10), and towering psychologists (n = 10); and scholars who have made more modest contributions to science including randomly selected (b) fellows (n = 15) and (c) members (n = 15) of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The IQp also correlates better with expert ratings of greatness than does the h index.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 3171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=3171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 3171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3171)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study proposes a new visualization method and index for collection evaluation. Specifically, it develops a network-based mapping technique and a user-focused Hirsch index (user-side h-index) given the lack of previous studies on collection evaluation methods that have used the h-index. A user-side h-index is developed and compared with previous indices (use factor, difference of percentages, collection-side h-index) that represent the strengths of the subject classes of a library collection. The mapping procedure includes the subject-usage profiling of 63 subject classes and collection-usage map generations through the pathfinder network algorithm. Cluster analyses are then conducted upon the pathfinder network to generate 5 large and 14 small clusters. The nodes represent the strengths of the subject-class usages reflected by the user-side h-index. The user-side h-index was found to have advantages (e.g., better demonstrating the real utility of each subject class) over the other indices. It also can more clearly distinguish the strengths between the subject classes than can collection-side h-index. These results may help to identify actual usage and strengths of subject classes in library collections through visualized maps. This may be a useful rationale for the establishment of the collection-development plan.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 3428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=3428,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 3428, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3428)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Based on the principles of the h-index, I propose a new measure, the w-index, as a particularly simple and more useful way to assess the substantial impact of a researcher's work, especially regarding excellent papers. The w-index can be defined as follows: If w of a researcher's papers have at least 10w citations each and the other papers have fewer than 10(w+1) citations, that researcher's w-index is w. The results demonstrate that there are noticeable differences between the w-index and the h-index, because the w-index plays close attention to the more widely cited papers. These discrepancies can be measured by comparing the ranks of 20 astrophysicists, a few famous physical scientists, and 16 Price medalists. Furthermore, I put forward the w(q)-index to improve the discriminatory power of the w-index and to rank scientists with the same w. The factor q is the least number of citations a researcher with w needed to reach w+1. In terms of both simplicity and accuracy, the w-index or w(q)-index can be widely used for evaluation of scientists, journals, conferences, scientific topics, research institutions, and so on.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=4217,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 4217, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4217)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper studies mathematical properties of h-index sequences as developed by Liang [Liang, L. (2006). h-Index sequence and h-index matrix: Constructions and applications. Scientometrics, 69(1), 153-159]. For practical reasons, Liming studies such sequences where the time goes backwards while it is more logical to use the time going forward (real career periods). Both type of h-index sequences are studied here and their interrelations are revealed. We show cases where these sequences are convex, linear and concave. We also show that, when one of the sequences is convex then the other one is concave, showing that the reverse-time sequence, in general, cannot be used to derive similar properties of the (difficult to obtain) forward time sequence. We show that both sequences are the same if and only if the author produces the same number of papers per year. If the author produces an increasing number of papers per year, then Liang's h-sequences are above the "normal" ones. All these results are also valid for g- and R-sequences. The results are confirmed by the h-, g- and R-sequences (forward and reverse time) of the author.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 2214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=2214,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 2214, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2214)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

An extensive analysis of the presence of different altmetric indicators provided by Altmetric.com across scientific fields is presented, particularly focusing on their relationship with citations. Our results confirm that the presence and density of social media altmetric counts are still very low and not very frequent among scientific publications, with 15%-24% of the publications presenting some altmetric activity and concentrated on the most recent publications, although their presence is increasing over time. Publications from the social sciences, humanities, and the medical and life sciences show the highest presence of altmetrics, indicating their potential value and interest for these fields. The analysis of the relationships between altmetrics and citations confirms previous claims of positive correlations but is relatively weak, thus supporting the idea that altmetrics do not reflect the same kind of impact as citations. Also, altmetric counts do not always present a better filtering of highly-cited publications than journal citation scores. Altmetric scores (particularly mentions in blogs) are able to identify highly-cited publications with higher levels of precision than journal citation scores (JCS), but they have a lower level of recall. The value of altmetrics as a complementary tool of citation analysis is highlighted, although more research is suggested to disentangle the potential meaning and value of altmetric indicators for research evaluation.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 2685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=2685,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 2685, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2685)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Automatic document summarization using citations is based on summarizing what others explicitly say about the document, by extracting a summary from text around the citations (citances). While this technique works quite well for summarizing the impact of scientific articles, other genres of documents as well as other types of summaries require different approaches. In this paper, we introduce a new family of methods that we developed for legal documents summarization to generate catchphrases for legal cases (where catchphrases are a form of legal summary). Our methods use both incoming and outgoing citations, and we show how citances can be combined with other elements of cited and citing documents, including the full text of the target document, and catchphrases of cited and citing cases. On a legal summarization corpus, our methods outperform competitive baselines. The combination of full text sentences and catchphrases from cited and citing cases is particularly successful. We also apply and evaluate the methods on scientific paper summarization, where they perform at the level of state-of-the-art techniques. Our family of citation-based summarization methods is powerful and flexible enough to target successfully a range of different domains and summarization tasks.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 2710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=2710,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 2710, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2710)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Knowledge organization (KO) and bibliometrics have traditionally been seen as separate subfields of library and information science, but bibliometric techniques make it possible to identify candidate terms for thesauri and to organize knowledge by relating scientific papers and authors to each other and thereby indicating kinds of relatedness and semantic distance. It is therefore important to view bibliometric techniques as a family of approaches to KO in order to illustrate their relative strengths and weaknesses. The subfield of bibliometrics concerned with citation analysis forms a distinct approach to KO which is characterized by its social, historical and dynamic nature, its close dependence on scholarly literature and its explicit kind of literary warrant. The two main methods, co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling represent different things and thus neither can be considered superior for all purposes. The main difference between traditional knowledge organization systems (KOSs) and maps based on citation analysis is that the first group represents intellectual KOSs, whereas the second represents social KOSs. For this reason bibliometric maps cannot be expected ever to be fully equivalent to scholarly taxonomies, but they are - along with other forms of KOSs - valuable tools for assisting users' to orient themselves to the information ecology. Like other KOSs, citation-based maps cannot be neutral but will always be based on researchers' decisions, which tend to favor certain interests and views at the expense of others.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Social media are becoming increasingly popular in scientific communication. A range of platforms, such as academic social networking sites (SNS), are geared specifically towards the academic community. Proponents of the altmetrics approach have pointed out that new media allow for new avenues of scientific impact assessment. Traditional impact measures based on bibliographic analysis have long been criticized for overlooking the relational dynamics of scientific impact. We therefore propose an application of social network analysis to researchers' interactions on an academic social networking site to generate potential new metrics of scientific impact. Based on a case study conducted among a sample of Swiss management scholars, we analyze how centrality measures derived from the participants' interactions on the academic SNS ResearchGate relate to traditional, offline impact indicators. We find that platform engagement, seniority, and publication impact contribute to members' indegree and eigenvector centrality on the platform, but less so to closeness or betweenness centrality. We conclude that a relational approach based on social network analyses of academic SNS, while subject to platform-specific dynamics, may add richness and differentiation to scientific impact assessment.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 3041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=3041,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 3041, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3041)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The diversity of bibliometric indices today poses the challenge of exploiting the relationships among them. Our research uncovers the best core set of relevant indices for predicting other bibliometric indices. An added difficulty is to select the role of each variable, that is, which bibliometric indices are predictive variables and which are response variables. This results in a novel multioutput regression problem where the role of each variable (predictor or response) is unknown beforehand. We use Gaussian Bayesian networks to solve the this problem and discover multivariate relationships among bibliometric indices. These networks are learnt by a genetic algorithm that looks for the optimal models that best predict bibliometric data. Results show that the optimal induced Gaussian Bayesian networks corroborate previous relationships between several indices, but also suggest new, previously unreported interactions. An extended analysis of the best model illustrates that a set of 12 bibliometric indices can be accurately predicted using only a smaller predictive core subset composed of citations, g-index, q2-index, and hr-index. This research is performed using bibliometric data on Spanish full professors associated with the computer science area.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=3317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Citations from patents to scientific publications provide useful evidence about the commercial impact of academic research, but automatically searchable databases are needed to exploit this connection for large-scale patent citation evaluations. Google covers multiple different international patent office databases but does not index patent citations or allow automatic searches. In response, this article introduces a semiautomatic indirect method via Bing to extract and filter patent citations from Google to academic papers with an overall precision of 98%. The method was evaluated with 322,192 science and engineering Scopus articles from every second year for the period 1996-2012. Although manual Google Patent searches give more results, especially for articles with many patent citations, the difference is not large enough to be a major problem. Within Biomedical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Pharmacology & Pharmaceutics, 7% to 10% of Scopus articles had at least one patent citation but other fields had far fewer, so patent citation analysis is only relevant for a minority of publications. Low but positive correlations between Google Patent citations and Scopus citations across all fields suggest that traditional citation counts cannot substitute for patent citations when evaluating research.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 3605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=3605,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 3605, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3605)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Webometrics research methods can be effectively used to measure and analyze information on the web. One topic discussed vehemently online that could benefit from this type of analysis is vaccines. We carried out a study analyzing the web presence of both sides of this debate. We collected a variety of webometric data and analyzed the data both quantitatively and qualitatively. The study found far more anti- than pro-vaccine web domains. The anti and pro sides had similar web visibility as measured by the number of links coming from general websites and Tweets. However, the links to the pro domains were of higher quality measured by PageRank scores. The result from the qualitative content analysis confirmed this finding. The analysis of site ages revealed that the battle between the two sides had a long history and is still ongoing. The web scene was polarized with either pro or anti views and little neutral ground. The study suggests ways that professional information can be promoted more effectively on the web. The study demonstrates that webometrics analysis is effective in studying online information dissemination. This kind of analysis can be used to study not only health information but other information as well.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 3606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=3606,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 3606, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3606)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

To understand the current state of a discipline and to discover new knowledge of a certain theme, one builds bibliometric content networks based on the present knowledge entities. However, such networks can vary according to the collection of data sets relevant to the theme by querying knowledge entities. In this study we classify three different bibliometric content networks. The primary bibliometric network is based on knowledge entities relevant to a keyword of the theme, the secondary network is based on entities associated with the lower concepts of the keyword, and the tertiary network is based on entities influenced by the theme. To explore the content and properties of these networks, we propose a tomographic content analysis that takes a slice-and-dice approach to analyzing the networks. Our findings indicate that the primary network is best suited to understanding the current knowledge on a certain topic, whereas the secondary network is good at discovering new knowledge across fields associated with the topic, and the tertiary network is appropriate for outlining the current knowledge of the topic and relevant studies.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=3760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Although news stories target the general public and are sometimes inaccurate, they can serve as sources of real-world information for researchers. This article investigates the extent to which academics exploit journalism using content and citation analyses of online BBC News stories cited by Scopus articles. A total of 27,234 Scopus-indexed publications have cited at least one BBC News story, with a steady annual increase. Citations from the arts and humanities (2.8% of publications in 2015) and social sciences (1.5%) were more likely than citations from medicine (0.1%) and science (<0.1%). Surprisingly, half of the sampled Scopus-cited science and technology (53%) and medicine and health (47%) stories were based on academic research, rather than otherwise unpublished information, suggesting that researchers have chosen a lower-quality secondary source for their citations. Nevertheless, the BBC News stories that were most frequently cited by Scopus, Google Books, and Wikipedia introduced new information from many different topics, including politics, business, economics, statistics, and reports about events. Thus, news stories are mediating real-world knowledge into the academic domain, a potential cause for concern.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=3766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

SlideShare is a free social website that aims to help users distribute and find presentations. Owned by LinkedIn since 2012, it targets a professional audience but may give value to scholarship through creating a long-term record of the content of talks. This article tests this hypothesis by analyzing sets of general and scholarly related SlideShare documents using content and citation analysis and popularity statistics reported on the site. The results suggest that academics, students, and teachers are a minority of SlideShare uploaders, especially since 2010, with most documents not being directly related to scholarship or teaching. About two thirds of uploaded SlideShare documents are presentation slides, with the remainder often being files associated with presentations or video recordings of talks. SlideShare is therefore a presentation-centered site with a predominantly professional user base. Although a minority of the uploaded SlideShare documents are cited by, or cite, academic publications, probably too few articles are cited by SlideShare to consider extracting SlideShare citations for research evaluation. Nevertheless, scholars should consider SlideShare to be a potential source of academic and nonacademic information, particularly in library and information science, education, and business.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=5225,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5225)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The Leiden Rankings can be used for grouping research universities by considering universities which are not statistically significantly different as homogeneous sets. The groups and intergroup relations can be analyzed and visualized using tools from network analysis. Using the so-called "excellence indicator" PPtop-10%-the proportion of the top-10% most-highly-cited papers assigned to a university-we pursue a classification using (a) overlapping stability intervals, (b) statistical-significance tests, and (c) effect sizes of differences among 902 universities in 54 countries; we focus on the UK, Germany, Brazil, and the USA as national examples. Although the groupings remain largely the same using different statistical significance levels or overlapping stability intervals, these classifications are uncorrelated with those based on effect sizes. Effect sizes for the differences between universities are small (w < .2). The more detailed analysis of universities at the country level suggests that distinctions beyond three or perhaps four groups of universities (high, middle, low) may not be meaningful. Given similar institutional incentives, isomorphism within each eco-system of universities should not be underestimated. Our results suggest that networks based on overlapping stability intervals can provide a first impression of the relevant groupings among universities. However, the clusters are not well-defined divisions between groups of universities.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 5983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=5983,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 5983, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5983)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Scholarly identity refers to endeavors by scholars to promote their reputation, work and networks using online platforms such as ResearchGate, Academia.edu and Twitter. This exploratory research investigates benefits and drawbacks of scholarly identity efforts and avenues for potential library support. Design/methodology/approach Data from 30 semi-structured phone interviews with faculty, doctoral students and academic librarians were qualitatively analyzed using the constant comparisons method (Charmaz, 2014) and Goffman's (1959, 1967) theoretical concept of impression management. Findings Results reveal that use of online platforms enables academics to connect with others and disseminate their research. scholarly identity platforms have benefits, opportunities and offer possibilities for developing academic library support. They are also fraught with drawbacks/concerns, especially related to confusion, for-profit models and reputational risk. Research limitations/implications This exploratory study involves analysis of a small number of interviews (30) with self-selected social scientists from one discipline (communication) and librarians. It lacks gender, race/ethnicity and geographical diversity and focuses exclusively on individuals who use social networking sites for their scholarly identity practices. Social implications Results highlight benefits and risks of scholarly identity work and the potential for adopting practices that consider ethical dilemmas inherent in maintaining an online social media presence. They suggest continuing to develop library support that provides strategic guidance and information on legal responsibilities regarding copyright. Originality/value This research aims to understand the benefits and drawbacks of Scholarly Identity platforms and explore what support academic libraries might offer. It is among the first to investigate these topics comparing perspectives of faculty, doctoral students and librarians.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Scientific novelty drives the efforts to invent new vaccines and solutions during the pandemic. First-time collaboration and international collaboration are two pivotal channels to expand teams' search activities for a broader scope of resources required to address the global challenge, which might facilitate the generation of novel ideas. Our analysis of 98,981 coronavirus papers suggests that scientific novelty measured by the BioBERT model that is pretrained on 29 million PubMed articles, and first-time collaboration increased after the outbreak of COVID-19, and international collaboration witnessed a sudden decrease. During COVID-19, papers with more first-time collaboration were found to be more novel and international collaboration did not hamper novelty as it had done in the normal periods. The findings suggest the necessity of reaching out for distant resources and the importance of maintaining a collaborative scientific community beyond nationalism during a pandemic.