Search (59 results, page 1 of 3)

0.0063568843 = product of:
  0.025427537 = sum of:
    0.025427537 = weight(_text_:information in 153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025427537 = score(doc=153,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.4507101 = fieldWeight in 153, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=153)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Information grounds emerge as people share information with others in a common place. Many studies have investigated the emergence of information grounds in public places. This study pays attention to the emergence, peak, and abeyance of an online information ground. It investigates a Facebook group used by youth for sharing information when misinformation spread wildly during the 2011 violence in Ambon, Indonesia. The findings demonstrate change and continuity in an online information ground; it became an information hub when reaching a peak cycle, and an information repository when entering into abeyance. Despite this period of nonactivity, the friendships and collective memories resulting from information ground interactions last over time and can be used for reactivating the online information ground when new needs emerge. Illuminating the lifecycles of an online information ground, the findings have potential to explain the dynamic of users' interactions with others and with information in quotidian spaces.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.3, S.302-314

0.0032826809 = product of:
  0.0131307235 = sum of:
    0.0131307235 = weight(_text_:information in 610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0131307235 = score(doc=610,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.23274568 = fieldWeight in 610, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=610)
  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.

0.0030584573 = product of:
  0.012233829 = sum of:
    0.012233829 = weight(_text_:information in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012233829 = score(doc=998,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.811-827

0.0027355675 = product of:
  0.01094227 = sum of:
    0.01094227 = weight(_text_:information in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01094227 = score(doc=178,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
  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.

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 72(2020) no.6, S.945-962

0.0027355675 = product of:
  0.01094227 = sum of:
    0.01094227 = weight(_text_:information in 1022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01094227 = score(doc=1022,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1022, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1022)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.8, S.1010-1025

0.0027080737 = product of:
  0.010832295 = sum of:
    0.010832295 = weight(_text_:information in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010832295 = score(doc=547,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article discusses how letters to the editor boost publishing metrics for journals and authors, and then examines letters published since 2015 in six elite journals, including the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. The initial findings identify some potentially anomalous use of letters and unusual self-citation patterns. The article proposes that Clarivate Analytics consider slightly reconfiguring the Journal Impact Factor to more fairly account for letters and that journals transparently explain their letter submission policies.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.5, S.702-707

0.0023690711 = product of:
  0.0094762845 = sum of:
    0.0094762845 = weight(_text_:information in 208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0094762845 = score(doc=208,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 208, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=208)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Problem solving often requires crossing boundaries, such as those between disciplines. When policy-makers call for "interdisciplinarity," however, they often mean "synergy." Synergy is generated when the whole offers more possibilities than the sum of its parts. An increase in the number of options above the sum of the options in subsets can be measured as redundancy; that is, the number of not-yet-realized options. The number of options available to an innovation system for realization can be as decisive for the system's survival as the historically already-realized innovations. Unlike "interdisciplinarity," "synergy" can also be generated in sectorial or geographical collaborations. The measurement of "synergy," however, requires a methodology different from the measurement of "interdisciplinarity." In this study, we discuss recent advances in the operationalization and measurement of "interdisciplinarity," and propose a methodology for measuring "synergy" based on information theory. The sharing of meanings attributed to information from different perspectives can increase redundancy. Increasing redundancy reduces the relative uncertainty, for example, in niches. The operationalization of the two concepts-"interdisciplinarity" and "synergy"-as different and partly overlapping indicators allows for distinguishing between the effects and the effectiveness of science-policy interventions in research priorities.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.4, S.387-402

0.0023690711 = product of:
  0.0094762845 = sum of:
    0.0094762845 = weight(_text_:information in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0094762845 = score(doc=949,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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).

0.002321206 = product of:
  0.009284824 = sum of:
    0.009284824 = weight(_text_:information in 5676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009284824 = score(doc=5676,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 5676, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5676)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article offers an adjustment to the recently developed Euclidean Index (Perry and Reny, 2016). The proposed companion metric reflects the impact of the journal in which an article appears; the rationale for incorporating this information is to reflect higher costs of production and higher review standards, and to mitigate the heavily truncated citation counts that often arise in promotion, renewal, and tenure deliberations. Additionally, focusing jointly on citations and journal impact diversifies the assessment process, and can thereby help avoid misjudging scholars with modest citation counts in high-level journals. A combination of both metrics is also proposed, which nests each as a special case. The approach is demonstrated using a generic journal ranking metric, but can be adapted to most any stated or revealed preference measure of journal impact.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.3, S.370-373

0.002321206 = product of:
  0.009284824 = sum of:
    0.009284824 = weight(_text_:information in 5917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009284824 = score(doc=5917,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 5917, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5917)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The star-rating mechanism of customer reviews is used universally by the online population to compare and select merchants, movies, products, and services. The consensus opinion from aggregation of star ratings is used as a proxy for item quality. Online reviews are noisy and effective aggregation of star ratings to accurately reflect the "true quality" of products and services is challenging. The mean-rating aggregation model is widely used and other aggregation models are also proposed. These existing aggregation models rely on a large number of reviews to tolerate noise. However, many products rarely have reviews. We propose probabilistic aggregation models for review ratings based on the Dirichlet distribution to combat data sparsity in reviews. We further propose to exploit the "helpfulness" social information and time to filter noisy reviews and effectively aggregate ratings to compute the consensus opinion. Our experiments on an Amazon data set show that our probabilistic aggregation models based on "helpfulness" achieve better performance than the statistical and heuristic baseline approaches.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.7, S.784-799

0.0021884541 = product of:
  0.008753817 = sum of:
    0.008753817 = weight(_text_:information in 5660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008753817 = score(doc=5660,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5660, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5660)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 72(2021) H.4, S.212-220

0.0021884541 = product of:
  0.008753817 = sum of:
    0.008753817 = weight(_text_:information in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008753817 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 71(2020) H.2/3, S.77-85

0.0021884541 = product of:
  0.008753817 = sum of:
    0.008753817 = weight(_text_:information in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008753817 = score(doc=152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 152, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=152)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.4, S.449-4473-477

0.0021884541 = product of:
  0.008753817 = sum of:
    0.008753817 = weight(_text_:information in 407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008753817 = score(doc=407,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 407, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=407)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Diese Note legt dar, dass der sogenannte h-Index (Hirschs bibliometrischer Index) im Wesentlichen dieselbe Information wiedergibt wie die Gesamtanzahl von Zitationen von Publikationen einer Autorin oder eines Autors, also ein nutzloser bibliometrischer Index ist. Dies basiert auf einem faszinierenden Satz der Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie, der hier ebenfalls erläutert wird.

0.0019343384 = product of:
  0.0077373534 = sum of:
    0.0077373534 = weight(_text_:information in 5974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0077373534 = score(doc=5974,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5974, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5974)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Information

0.0019343384 = product of:
  0.0077373534 = sum of:
    0.0077373534 = weight(_text_:information in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0077373534 = score(doc=157,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Finding new ways to help researchers and administrators understand academic fields is an important task for information scientists. Given the importance of interdisciplinary research, it is essential to be aware of disciplinary differences in aspects of scholarship, such as the significance of recent changes in a field. This paper identifies potential changes in 25 subject categories through a term comparison of words in article titles, keywords and abstracts in 1 year compared to the previous 4 years. The scholarly influence of new research issues is indirectly assessed with a citation analysis of articles matching each trending term. While topic-related words dominate the top terms, style, national focus, and language changes are also evident. Thus, as reflected in Scopus, fields evolve along multiple dimensions. Moreover, while articles exploiting new issues are usually more cited in some fields, such as Organic Chemistry, they are usually less cited in others, including History. The possible causes of new issues being less cited include externally driven temporary factors, such as disease outbreaks, and internally driven temporary decisions, such as a deliberate emphasis on a single topic (e.g., through a journal special issue).

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.3, S.269-279

0.0019343384 = product of:
  0.0077373534 = sum of:
    0.0077373534 = weight(_text_:information in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0077373534 = score(doc=176,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 176, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=176)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to understand the nature of citations and metrics in the larger system of knowledge production involving universities, funding agencies, publishers, and indexing and data analytic services. Design/methodology/approach First, the normative and social constructivist views of citations are reviewed to be understood as co-existing conditions. Second, metrics are examined through the processes of commensuration by tracing the meanings of metrics embedded in various kinds of documents and contexts. Third, the steering effects of citations and metrics on knowledge production are discussed. Finally, the conclusion addresses questions pertaining to the validity and legitimacy of citations as data and their implications for knowledge production and the conception of information. Findings The normative view of citations is understood as an ideal speech situation; the social constructivist view of citation is recognised in the system of knowledge production where citing motivations are influenced by epistemic, social and political factors. When organisational performances are prioritised and generate system imperatives, motives of competition become dominant in shaping citing behaviour, which can deviate from the norms and values in the academic lifeworld. As a result, citations and metrics become a non-linguistic steering medium rather than evidence of research quality and impact. Originality/value This paper contributes to the understanding of the nature of citations and metrics and their implications for the conception of information and knowledge production.

0.0019343384 = product of:
  0.0077373534 = sum of:
    0.0077373534 = weight(_text_:information in 265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0077373534 = score(doc=265,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 265, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=265)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

To provide some context for the potential engagement behavior of Twitter users around science, this article investigates how Bitly short links to scientific publications embedded in scholarly Twitter mentions are clicked on Twitter. Based on the click metrics of over 1.1 million Bitly short links referring to Web of Science (WoS) publications, our results show that around 49.5% of them were not clicked by Twitter users. For those Bitly short links with clicks from Twitter, the majority of their Twitter clicks accumulated within a short period of time after they were first tweeted. Bitly short links to the publications in the field of Social Sciences and Humanities tend to attract more clicks from Twitter over other subject fields. This article also assesses the extent to which Twitter clicks are correlated with some other impact indicators. Twitter clicks are weakly correlated with scholarly impact indicators (WoS citations and Mendeley readers), but moderately correlated to other Twitter engagement indicators (total retweets and total likes). In light of these results, we highlight the importance of paying more attention to the click metrics of URLs in scholarly Twitter mentions, to improve our understanding about the more effective dissemination and reception of science information on Twitter.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.7, S.918-932

0.0019343384 = product of:
  0.0077373534 = sum of:
    0.0077373534 = weight(_text_:information in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0077373534 = score(doc=410,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 410, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=410)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In 2014 leading publishers withdrew more than 120 nonsensical publications automatically generated with the SCIgen program. Casual observations suggested that similar problematic papers are still published and sold, without follow-up retractions. No systematic screening has been performed and the prevalence of such nonsensical publications in the scientific literature is unknown. Our contribution is 2-fold. First, we designed a detector that combs the scientific literature for grammar-based computer-generated papers. Applied to SCIgen, it has a 83.6% precision. Second, we performed a scientometric study of the 243 detected SCIgen-papers from 19 publishers. We estimate the prevalence of SCIgen-papers to be 75 per million papers in Information and Computing Sciences. Only 19% of the 243 problematic papers were dealt with: formal retraction (12) or silent removal (34). Publishers still serve and sometimes sell the remaining 197 papers without any caveat. We found evidence of citation manipulation via edited SCIgen bibliographies. This work reveals metric gaming up to the point of absurdity: fraudsters publish nonsensical algorithmically generated papers featuring genuine references. It stresses the need to screen papers for nonsense before peer-review and chase citation manipulation in published papers. Overall, this is yet another illustration of the harmful effects of the pressure to publish or perish.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.12, S.1461-1476

0.0019343384 = product of:
  0.0077373534 = sum of:
    0.0077373534 = weight(_text_:information in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0077373534 = score(doc=917,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.056416616 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03213747 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Coauthorship prediction applies predictive analytics to bibliographic data to predict authors who are highly likely to be coauthors. In this study, we propose an approach for coauthorship prediction based on bibliographic network embedding through a graph-based bibliographic data model that can be used to model common bibliographic data, including papers, terms, sources, authors, departments, research interests, universities, and countries. A real-world dataset released by AMiner that includes more than 2 million papers, 8 million citations, and 1.7 million authors were integrated into a large bibliographic network using the proposed bibliographic data model. Translation-based methods were applied to the entities and relationships to generate their low-dimensional embeddings while preserving their connectivity information in the original bibliographic network. We applied machine learning algorithms to embeddings that represent the coauthorship relationships of the two authors and achieved high prediction results. The reference model, which is the combination of a network embedding size of 100, the most basic translation-based method, and a gradient boosting method achieved an F1 score of 0.9 and even higher scores are obtainable with different embedding sizes and more advanced embedding methods. Thus, the strengths of the proposed approach lie in its customizable components under a unified framework.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.4, S.388-401