-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Academic collaboration rates and citation associations vary substantially between countries and fields (2020)
0.04
0.035754256 = product of:
0.12513989 = sum of:
0.025446396 = weight(_text_:management in 5952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025446396 = score(doc=5952,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.04054466 = queryNorm
0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 5952, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5952)
0.0996935 = weight(_text_:united in 5952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0996935 = score(doc=5952,freq=4.0), product of:
0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.04054466 = queryNorm
0.43829006 = fieldWeight in 5952, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5952)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Abstract
- Research collaboration is promoted by governments and research funders, but if the relative prevalence and merits of collaboration vary internationally then different national and disciplinary strategies may be needed to promote it. This study compares the team size and field normalized citation impact of research across all 27 Scopus broad fields in the 10 countries with the most journal articles indexed in Scopus 2008-2012. The results show that team size varies substantially by discipline and country, with Japan (4.2) having two-thirds more authors per article than the United Kingdom (2.5). Solo authorship is rare in China (4%) but common in the United Kingdom (27%). While increasing team size associates with higher citation impact in almost all countries and fields, this association is much weaker in China than elsewhere. There are also field differences in the association between citation impact and collaboration. For example, larger team sizes in the Business, Management & Accounting category do not seem to associate with greater research impact, and for China and India, solo authorship associates with higher citation impact in this field. Overall, there are substantial international and field differences in the extent to which researchers collaborate and the extent to which collaboration associates with higher citation impact.
-
Chen, L.; Ding, J.; Larivière, V.: Measuring the citation context of national self-references : how a web journal club is used (2022)
0.03
0.029843397 = product of:
0.10445189 = sum of:
0.07049395 = weight(_text_:united in 545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07049395 = score(doc=545,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.04054466 = queryNorm
0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 545, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=545)
0.033957936 = product of:
0.06791587 = sum of:
0.06791587 = weight(_text_:states in 545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06791587 = score(doc=545,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.04054466 = queryNorm
0.304198 = fieldWeight in 545, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=545)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Abstract
- The emphasis on research evaluation has brought scrutiny to the role of self-citations in the scholarly communication process. While author self-citations have been studied at length, little is known on national-level self-references (SRs). This paper analyses the citation context of national SRs, using the full-text of 184,859 papers published in PLOS journals. It investigates the differences between national SRs and nonself-references (NSRs) in terms of their in-text mention, presence in enumerations, and location features. For all countries, national SRs exhibit a higher level of engagement than NSRs. NSRs are more often found in enumerative citances than SRs, which suggests that researchers pay more attention to domestic than foreign studies. There are more mentions of national research in the methods section, which provides evidence that methodologies developed in a nation are more likely to be used by other researchers from the same nation. Publications from the United States are cited at a higher rate in each of the sections, indicating that the country still maintains a dominant position in science. On the whole, this paper contributes to a better understanding of the role of national SRs in the scholarly communication system, and how it varies across countries and over time.
-
Lorentzen, D.G.: Bridging polarised Twitter discussions : the interactions of the users in the middle (2021)
0.01
0.013432972 = product of:
0.0470154 = sum of:
0.030535674 = weight(_text_:management in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030535674 = score(doc=182,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.04054466 = queryNorm
0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 182, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=182)
0.016479723 = product of:
0.032959446 = sum of:
0.032959446 = weight(_text_:22 in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032959446 = score(doc=182,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04054466 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 182, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=182)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 73(2021) no.1, S.129-143
-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.01
0.011194143 = product of:
0.0391795 = sum of:
0.025446396 = weight(_text_:management in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025446396 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.04054466 = queryNorm
0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
0.013733104 = product of:
0.027466208 = sum of:
0.027466208 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027466208 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04054466 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 72(2020) no.6, S.945-962
-
Wang, S.; Ma, Y.; Mao, J.; Bai, Y.; Liang, Z.; Li, G.: Quantifying scientific breakthroughs by a novel disruption indicator based on knowledge entities : On the rise of scrape-and-report scholarship in online reviews research (2023)
0.01
0.011194143 = product of:
0.0391795 = sum of:
0.025446396 = weight(_text_:management in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025446396 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.04054466 = queryNorm
0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 882, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=882)
0.013733104 = product of:
0.027466208 = sum of:
0.027466208 = weight(_text_:22 in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027466208 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04054466 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 882, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=882)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Abstract
- Compared to previous studies that generally detect scientific breakthroughs based on citation patterns, this article proposes a knowledge entity-based disruption indicator by quantifying the change of knowledge directly created and inspired by scientific breakthroughs to their evolutionary trajectories. Two groups of analytic units, including MeSH terms and their co-occurrences, are employed independently by the indicator to measure the change of knowledge. The effectiveness of the proposed indicators was evaluated against the four datasets of scientific breakthroughs derived from four recognition trials. In terms of identifying scientific breakthroughs, the proposed disruption indicator based on MeSH co-occurrences outperforms that based on MeSH terms and three earlier citation-based disruption indicators. It is also shown that in our indicator, measuring the change of knowledge inspired by the focal paper in its evolutionary trajectory is a larger contributor than measuring the change created by the focal paper. Our study not only offers empirical insights into conceptual understanding of scientific breakthroughs but also provides practical disruption indicator for scientists and science management agencies searching for valuable research.
- Date
- 22. 1.2023 18:37:33
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Do altmetric scores reflect article quality? : evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 (2023)
0.01
0.010070565 = product of:
0.07049395 = sum of:
0.07049395 = weight(_text_:united in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07049395 = score(doc=947,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.04054466 = queryNorm
0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 947, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=947)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- Altmetrics are web-based quantitative impact or attention indicators for academic articles that have been proposed to supplement citation counts. This article reports the first assessment of the extent to which mature altmetrics from Altmetric.com and Mendeley associate with individual article quality scores. It exploits expert norm-referenced peer review scores from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 for 67,030+ journal articles in all fields 2014-2017/2018, split into 34 broadly field-based Units of Assessment (UoAs). Altmetrics correlated more strongly with research quality than previously found, although less strongly than raw and field normalized Scopus citation counts. Surprisingly, field normalizing citation counts can reduce their strength as a quality indicator for articles in a single field. For most UoAs, Mendeley reader counts are the best altmetric (e.g., three Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.5), tweet counts are also a moderate strength indicator in eight UoAs (Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.3), ahead of news (eight correlations above 0.3, but generally weaker), blogs (five correlations above 0.3), and Facebook (three correlations above 0.3) citations, at least in the United Kingdom. In general, altmetrics are the strongest indicators of research quality in the health and physical sciences and weakest in the arts and humanities.
-
Radford, M.L.; Kitzie, V.; Mikitish, S.; Floegel, D.; Radford, G.P.; Connaway, L.S.: "People are reading your work," : scholarly identity and social networking sites (2020)
0.00
0.0036351997 = product of:
0.025446396 = sum of:
0.025446396 = weight(_text_:management in 5983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025446396 = score(doc=5983,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.04054466 = queryNorm
0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 5983, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5983)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- 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.
-
Manley, S.: Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics (2022)
0.00
0.0027466207 = product of:
0.019226344 = sum of:
0.019226344 = product of:
0.03845269 = sum of:
0.03845269 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03845269 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04054466 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 6. 4.2022 19:22:26
-
Milard, B.; Pitarch, Y.: Egocentric cocitation networks and scientific papers destinies (2023)
0.00
0.0023542463 = product of:
0.016479723 = sum of:
0.016479723 = product of:
0.032959446 = sum of:
0.032959446 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032959446 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04054466 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 21. 3.2023 19:22:14
-
Cerda-Cosme, R.; Méndez, E.: Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19 : a first approach (2023)
0.00
0.001961872 = product of:
0.013733104 = sum of:
0.013733104 = product of:
0.027466208 = sum of:
0.027466208 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027466208 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04054466 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 21. 3.2023 19:22:02
-
Asubiaro, T.V.; Onaolapo, S.: ¬A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef (2023)
0.00
0.001961872 = product of:
0.013733104 = sum of:
0.013733104 = product of:
0.027466208 = sum of:
0.027466208 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027466208 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04054466 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 14:09:06
-
Zhang, Y.; Wu, M.; Zhang, G.; Lu, J.: Stepping beyond your comfort zone : diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation (2023)
0.00
0.001961872 = product of:
0.013733104 = sum of:
0.013733104 = product of:
0.027466208 = sum of:
0.027466208 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027466208 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04054466 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:07:12
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Why are coauthored academic articles more cited : higher quality or larger audience? (2023)
0.00
0.001961872 = product of:
0.013733104 = sum of:
0.013733104 = product of:
0.027466208 = sum of:
0.027466208 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027466208 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04054466 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
-
Vakkari, P.; Järvelin, K.; Chang, Y.-W.: ¬The association of disciplinary background with the evolution of topics and methods in Library and Information Science research 1995-2015 (2023)
0.00
0.001961872 = product of:
0.013733104 = sum of:
0.013733104 = product of:
0.027466208 = sum of:
0.027466208 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027466208 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04054466 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:15:06
