Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0308587 = sum of:
  0.016821755 = product of:
    0.06728702 = sum of:
      0.06728702 = weight(_text_:authors in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06728702 = score(doc=4051,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.28492588 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.014036945 = product of:
    0.02807389 = sum of:
      0.02807389 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02807389 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)

Abstract

Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0132999765 = product of:
  0.026599953 = sum of:
    0.026599953 = product of:
      0.053199906 = sum of:
        0.053199906 = weight(_text_:n in 4015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053199906 = score(doc=4015,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 4015, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4015)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.008921083 = product of:
  0.017842166 = sum of:
    0.017842166 = product of:
      0.071368665 = sum of:
        0.071368665 = weight(_text_:authors in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071368665 = score(doc=2299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

How does publication pressure in modern-day universities affect the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in science? By using a worldwide survey among demographers in developed and developing countries, the authors show that the large majority perceive the publication pressure as high, but more so in Anglo-Saxon countries and to a lesser extent in Western Europe. However, scholars see both the pros (upward mobility) and cons (excessive publication and uncitedness, neglect of policy issues, etc.) of the so-called publish-or-perish culture. By measuring behavior in terms of reading and publishing, and perceived extrinsic rewards and stated intrinsic rewards of practicing science, it turns out that publication pressure negatively affects the orientation of demographers towards policy and knowledge sharing. There are no signs that the pressure affects reading and publishing outside the core discipline.

0.00877309 = product of:
  0.01754618 = sum of:
    0.01754618 = product of:
      0.03509236 = sum of:
        0.03509236 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03509236 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.00877309 = product of:
  0.01754618 = sum of:
    0.01754618 = product of:
      0.03509236 = sum of:
        0.03509236 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03509236 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2016 14:11:17

0.00877309 = product of:
  0.01754618 = sum of:
    0.01754618 = product of:
      0.03509236 = sum of:
        0.03509236 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03509236 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.008410878 = product of:
  0.016821755 = sum of:
    0.016821755 = product of:
      0.06728702 = sum of:
        0.06728702 = weight(_text_:authors in 3838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06728702 = score(doc=3838,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.28492588 = fieldWeight in 3838, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3838)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Hybrid open access refers to articles freely accessible via the Internet but which originate from an academic journal that provides most of its content via subscription. The effect of hybrid open access on citation counts and author behavior in the field of chemistry is something that has not been widely studied. We compared 814 open access articles and 27,621 subscription access articles published from 2006 through 2011 in American Chemical Society journals. As expected, the 2 comparison groups are not equal in all respects. Cumulative citation data were analyzed from years 2-5 following an article's publication date. A citation advantage for open access articles was correlated with the journal impact factor (IF) in low and medium IF journals, but not in high IF journals. Open access articles have a 24% higher mean citation rate than their subscription counterparts in low IF journals (confidence limits 8-42%, p = .0022) and similarly, a 26% higher mean citation rate in medium IF journals (confidence limits 14-40%, p < .001). Open access articles in high IF journals had no significant difference compared to subscription access articles (13% lower mean citation rate, confidence limits -27-3%, p = .10). These results are correlative, not causative, and may not be completely due to an open access effect. Authors of the open access articles were also surveyed to determine why they chose a hybrid open access option, paid the required article processing charge, and whether they believed it was money well spent. Authors primarily chose open access because of funding mandates; however, most considered the money well spent because open access increases information access to the scientific community and the general public, and potentially increases citations to their scholarship.

0.0074342364 = product of:
  0.014868473 = sum of:
    0.014868473 = product of:
      0.05947389 = sum of:
        0.05947389 = weight(_text_:authors in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05947389 = score(doc=3768,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 3768, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3768)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although peer-review and citation counts are commonly used to help assess the scholarly impact of published research, informal reader feedback might also be exploited to help assess the wider impacts of books, such as their educational or cultural value. The social website Goodreads seems to be a reasonable source for this purpose because it includes a large number of book reviews and ratings by many users inside and outside of academia. To check this, Goodreads book metrics were compared with different book-based impact indicators for 15,928 academic books across broad fields. Goodreads engagements were numerous enough in the arts (85% of books had at least one), humanities (80%), and social sciences (67%) for use as a source of impact evidence. Low and moderate correlations between Goodreads book metrics and scholarly or non-scholarly indicators suggest that reader feedback in Goodreads reflects the many purposes of books rather than a single type of impact. Although Goodreads book metrics can be manipulated, they could be used guardedly by academics, authors, and publishers in evaluations.