Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020) 0.01 
    0.009729404 = product of:
  0.038917616 = sum of:
    0.038917616 = product of:
      0.058376424 = sum of:
        0.029320091 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029320091 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
        0.029056335 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029056335 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  2. Zhang, Y.; Wu, M.; Zhang, G.; Lu, J.: Stepping beyond your comfort zone : diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation (2023) 0.01 
    0.008572424 = product of:
  0.034289695 = sum of:
    0.034289695 = product of:
      0.05143454 = sum of:
        0.022378203 = weight(_text_:systems in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022378203 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
        0.029056335 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029056335 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Predicting a researcher's knowledge trajectories beyond their current foci can leverage potential inter-/cross-/multi-disciplinary interactions to achieve exploratory innovation. In this study, we present a method of diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation. The method begins by constructing a heterogeneous bibliometric network consisting of a co-topic layer and a co-authorship layer. A novel link prediction approach with a diffusion strategy is then used to capture the interactions between social elements (e.g., collaboration) and knowledge elements (e.g., technological similarity) in the process of exploratory innovation. This diffusion strategy differentiates the interactions occurring among homogeneous and heterogeneous nodes in the heterogeneous bibliometric network and weights the strengths of these interactions. Two sets of experiments-one with a local dataset and the other with a global dataset-demonstrate that the proposed method is prior to 10 selected baselines in link prediction, recommender systems, and upstream graph representation learning. A case study recommending knowledge trajectories of information scientists with topical hierarchy and explainable mediators reveals the proposed method's reliability and potential practical uses in broad scenarios.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:07:12
  3. Manley, S.: Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics (2022) 0.00 
    0.0033899057 = product of:
  0.013559623 = sum of:
    0.013559623 = product of:
      0.040678866 = sum of:
        0.040678866 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040678866 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    6. 4.2022 19:22:26
  4. Lorentzen, D.G.: Bridging polarised Twitter discussions : the interactions of the users in the middle (2021) 0.00 
    0.0029056333 = product of:
  0.011622533 = sum of:
    0.011622533 = product of:
      0.0348676 = sum of:
        0.0348676 = weight(_text_:22 in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0348676 = score(doc=182,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  5. Milard, B.; Pitarch, Y.: Egocentric cocitation networks and scientific papers destinies (2023) 0.00 
    0.0029056333 = product of:
  0.011622533 = sum of:
    0.011622533 = product of:
      0.0348676 = sum of:
        0.0348676 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0348676 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    21. 3.2023 19:22:14
  6. Liu, M.; Bu, Y.; Chen, C.; Xu, J.; Li, D.; Leng, Y.; Freeman, R.B.; Meyer, E.T.; Yoon, W.; Sung, M.; Jeong, M.; Lee, J.; Kang, J.; Min, C.; Zhai, Y.; Song, M.; Ding, Y.: Pandemics are catalysts of scientific novelty : evidence from COVID-19 (2022) 0.00 
    0.002443341 = product of:
  0.009773364 = sum of:
    0.009773364 = product of:
      0.029320091 = sum of:
        0.029320091 = weight(_text_:29 in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029320091 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  7. Jiao, H.; Qiu, Y.; Ma, X.; Yang, B.: Dissmination effect of data papers on scientific datasets (2024) 0.00 
    0.002443341 = product of:
  0.009773364 = sum of:
    0.009773364 = product of:
      0.029320091 = sum of:
        0.029320091 = weight(_text_:29 in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029320091 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    7. 1.2024 18:24:29
  8. 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) 0.00 
    0.0024213614 = product of:
  0.009685446 = sum of:
    0.009685446 = product of:
      0.029056335 = sum of:
        0.029056335 = weight(_text_:22 in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029056335 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:37:33
  9. Cerda-Cosme, R.; Méndez, E.: Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19 : a first approach (2023) 0.00 
    0.0024213614 = product of:
  0.009685446 = sum of:
    0.009685446 = product of:
      0.029056335 = sum of:
        0.029056335 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029056335 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    21. 3.2023 19:22:02
  10. Asubiaro, T.V.; Onaolapo, S.: ¬A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef (2023) 0.00 
    0.0024213614 = product of:
  0.009685446 = sum of:
    0.009685446 = product of:
      0.029056335 = sum of:
        0.029056335 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029056335 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 6.2023 14:09:06
  11. 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) 0.00 
    0.0024213614 = product of:
  0.009685446 = sum of:
    0.009685446 = product of:
      0.029056335 = sum of:
        0.029056335 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029056335 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:11:50
  12. 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) 0.00 
    0.0024213614 = product of:
  0.009685446 = sum of:
    0.009685446 = product of:
      0.029056335 = sum of:
        0.029056335 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029056335 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:15:06
  13. Zhao, D.; Strotmann, A.: Intellectual structure of information science 2011-2020 : an author co-citation analysis (2022) 0.00 
    0.00149188 = product of:
  0.00596752 = sum of:
    0.00596752 = product of:
      0.01790256 = sum of:
        0.01790256 = weight(_text_:systems in 610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01790256 = score(doc=610,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 610, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=610)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.

Authors