Search (671 results, page 1 of 34)

0.1145461 = product of:
  0.2290922 = sum of:
    0.2290922 = sum of:
      0.19444408 = weight(_text_:1,000 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19444408 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.4242943 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051146355 = queryNorm
          0.45827642 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
      0.034648124 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034648124 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17910582 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051146355 = 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)

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.

0.087114 = product of:
  0.174228 = sum of:
    0.174228 = product of:
      0.522684 = sum of:
        0.522684 = weight(_text_:2223 in 1692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.522684 = score(doc=1692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4918973 = queryWeight, product of:
              9.617446 = idf(docFreq=7, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051146355 = queryNorm
            1.0625876 = fieldWeight in 1692, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              9.617446 = idf(docFreq=7, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1692)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Scientometrics. 102(2015) no.3, S.2223-2245

0.08249564 = product of:
  0.16499127 = sum of:
    0.16499127 = product of:
      0.32998255 = sum of:
        0.32998255 = weight(_text_:1,000 in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.32998255 = score(doc=2157,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.4242943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051146355 = queryNorm
            0.7777209 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Search engine retrieval effectiveness studies are usually small scale, using only limited query samples. Furthermore, queries are selected by the researchers. We address these issues by taking a random representative sample of 1,000 informational and 1,000 navigational queries from a major German search engine and comparing Google's and Bing's results based on this sample. Jurors were found through crowdsourcing, and data were collected using specialized software, the Relevance Assessment Tool (RAT). We found that although Google outperforms Bing in both query types, the difference in the performance for informational queries was rather low. However, for navigational queries, Google found the correct answer in 95.3% of cases, whereas Bing only found the correct answer 76.6% of the time. We conclude that search engine performance on navigational queries is of great importance, because users in this case can clearly identify queries that have returned correct results. So, performance on this query type may contribute to explaining user satisfaction with search engines.

0.08123396 = product of:
  0.16246793 = sum of:
    0.16246793 = product of:
      0.48740378 = sum of:
        0.48740378 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.48740378 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43361935 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051146355 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.07777763 = product of:
  0.15555526 = sum of:
    0.15555526 = product of:
      0.31111053 = sum of:
        0.31111053 = weight(_text_:1,000 in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.31111053 = score(doc=4686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4242943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051146355 = queryNorm
            0.7332423 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

British novelist E.M. Forster once complained that long books "are usually overpraised" because "the reader wishes to convince others and himself that he has not wasted his time." To test his theory we collected reader ratings for 737 books tagged as "classic literature" on Goodreads.com, a review aggregator with 80m members. The bias towards chunky tomes was substantial. Slim volumes of 100 to 200 pages scored only 3.87 out of 5, whereas those over 1,000 pages scored 4.19. Longer is better, say the readers.

0.06874636 = product of:
  0.13749272 = sum of:
    0.13749272 = product of:
      0.27498543 = sum of:
        0.27498543 = weight(_text_:1,000 in 2226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27498543 = score(doc=2226,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.4242943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051146355 = queryNorm
            0.64810073 = fieldWeight in 2226, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Whether one should use a public e-mail account (e.g., Gmail, Yahoo!) or an institutional one (e.g., @wsiz.rzeszow.pl, @medicine.ox.ac.uk) as an address for correspondence is an important aspect of scientific communication. Some authors consider that public e-mail services are unprofessional and insecure, whereas others say that, in a dynamically changing working environment, public e-mail addresses allow readers to contact authors long after they have changed their workplace. To shed light on this issue, we analyzed how often authors of scientific papers provided e-mail addresses that were either public or institution based. We selected from the Web of Science database 1,000 frequently cited and 1,000 infrequently cited articles (all of the latter were noncited articles) published in 2000, 2005, and 2010, and from these we analyzed 26,937 e-mail addresses. The results showed that approximately three fourths of these addresses were institutional, but there was an increasing trend toward using public e-mail addresses over the period studied. No significant differences were found between frequently and infrequently cited papers in this respect. Further research is now needed to access the motivations and perceptions of scholars when it comes to their use of either public or institutional e-mail accounts.

0.06805543 = product of:
  0.13611086 = sum of:
    0.13611086 = product of:
      0.2722217 = sum of:
        0.2722217 = weight(_text_:1,000 in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2722217 = score(doc=1968,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4242943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051146355 = queryNorm
            0.641587 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Digital Commons platform for institutional repositories provides a three-tiered taxonomy of academic disciplines for each item submitted to the repository. Since faculty and departmental administrators across campuses are encouraged to submit materials to the institutional repository themselves, they must also assign disciplines or subject categories for their own work. The expandable drop-down menu of about 1,000 categories is easy to use, and facilitates the growth of the institutional repository and access to the materials through the Internet.

0.06805543 = product of:
  0.13611086 = sum of:
    0.13611086 = product of:
      0.2722217 = sum of:
        0.2722217 = weight(_text_:1,000 in 2002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2722217 = score(doc=2002,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4242943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051146355 = queryNorm
            0.641587 = fieldWeight in 2002, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2002)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The collection of nearly 1,000 piano rolls housed within the Department of Musicology and Cultural Heritage, University of Pavia, Cremona, Italy, remains in need of preservation. A digitalization project requires cataloging based on international cataloging standards. A distinction among instruments and media must be introduced and specific features of mechanical musical devices are to be identified. Four main classes of media have been identified: disks, pinned barrels, books, and rolls. Lastly, morphological peculiarities of the media must be examined to establish their correct and complete description within the International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD) areas.

0.06805543 = product of:
  0.13611086 = sum of:
    0.13611086 = product of:
      0.2722217 = sum of:
        0.2722217 = weight(_text_:1,000 in 4115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2722217 = score(doc=4115,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4242943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051146355 = queryNorm
            0.641587 = fieldWeight in 4115, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4115)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This representative study of German search engine users (N?=?1,000) focuses on the ability of users to distinguish between organic results and advertisements on Google results pages. We combine questions about Google's business with task-based studies in which users were asked to distinguish between ads and organic results in screenshots of results pages. We find that only a small percentage of users can reliably distinguish between ads and organic results, and that user knowledge of Google's business model is very limited. We conclude that ads are insufficiently labelled as such, and that many users may click on ads assuming that they are selecting organic results.

0.06769498 = product of:
  0.13538995 = sum of:
    0.13538995 = product of:
      0.40616983 = sum of:
        0.40616983 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.40616983 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43361935 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051146355 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.05833322 = product of:
  0.11666644 = sum of:
    0.11666644 = product of:
      0.23333289 = sum of:
        0.23333289 = weight(_text_:1,000 in 2163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23333289 = score(doc=2163,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4242943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051146355 = queryNorm
            0.5499317 = fieldWeight in 2163, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2163)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We analyze access statistics of 150 blog entries and news articles for periods of up to 3 years. Access rate falls as an inverse power of time passed since publication. The power law holds for periods of up to 1,000 days. The exponents are different for different blogs and are distributed between 0.6 and 3.2. We argue that the decay of attention to a web article is caused by the link to it first dropping down the list of links on the website's front page and then disappearing from the front page and its subsequent movement further into background. The other proposed explanations that use a decaying with time novelty factor, or some intricate theory of human dynamics, cannot explain all of the experimental observations.

0.05833322 = product of:
  0.11666644 = sum of:
    0.11666644 = product of:
      0.23333289 = sum of:
        0.23333289 = weight(_text_:1,000 in 2909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23333289 = score(doc=2909,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4242943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051146355 = queryNorm
            0.5499317 = fieldWeight in 2909, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2909)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Google Scholar is often used to search for medical literature. Numbers of results reported by Google Scholar outperform the numbers reported by traditional databases. How reliable are these numbers? Why are often not all available 1,000 references shown? Methods: For several complex search strategies used in systematic review projects, the number of citations and the total number of versions were calculated. Several search strategies were followed over a two-year period, registering fluctuations in reported search results. Results: Changes in numbers of reported search results varied enormously between search strategies and dates. Theories for calculations of the reported and shown number of hits were not proved. Conclusions: The number of hits reported in Google Scholar is an unreliable measure. Therefore, its repeatability is problematic, at least when equal results are needed.

0.05226841 = product of:
  0.10453682 = sum of:
    0.10453682 = product of:
      0.31361043 = sum of:
        0.31361043 = weight(_text_:2223 in 1524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.31361043 = score(doc=1524,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4918973 = queryWeight, product of:
              9.617446 = idf(docFreq=7, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051146355 = queryNorm
            0.6375526 = fieldWeight in 1524, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              9.617446 = idf(docFreq=7, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1524)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.11, S.2223-2232

0.05226841 = product of:
  0.10453682 = sum of:
    0.10453682 = product of:
      0.31361043 = sum of:
        0.31361043 = weight(_text_:2223 in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.31361043 = score(doc=2263,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4918973 = queryWeight, product of:
              9.617446 = idf(docFreq=7, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051146355 = queryNorm
            0.6375526 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              9.617446 = idf(docFreq=7, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2223-2234

0.05226841 = product of:
  0.10453682 = sum of:
    0.10453682 = product of:
      0.31361043 = sum of:
        0.31361043 = weight(_text_:2223 in 3092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.31361043 = score(doc=3092,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4918973 = queryWeight, product of:
              9.617446 = idf(docFreq=7, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051146355 = queryNorm
            0.6375526 = fieldWeight in 3092, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              9.617446 = idf(docFreq=7, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3092)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.9, S.2223-2245

0.04861102 = product of:
  0.09722204 = sum of:
    0.09722204 = product of:
      0.19444408 = sum of:
        0.19444408 = weight(_text_:1,000 in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19444408 = score(doc=4920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4242943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051146355 = queryNorm
            0.45827642 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Citation indictors are increasingly used in some subject areas to support peer review in the evaluation of researchers and departments. Nevertheless, traditional journal-based citation indexes may be inadequate for the citation impact assessment of book-based disciplines. This article examines whether online citations from Google Books and Google Scholar can provide alternative sources of citation evidence. To investigate this, we compared the citation counts to 1,000 books submitted to the 2008 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) from Google Books and Google Scholar with Scopus citations across seven book-based disciplines (archaeology; law; politics and international studies; philosophy; sociology; history; and communication, cultural, and media studies). Google Books and Google Scholar citations to books were 1.4 and 3.2 times more common than were Scopus citations, and their medians were more than twice and three times as high as were Scopus median citations, respectively. This large number of citations is evidence that in book-oriented disciplines in the social sciences, arts, and humanities, online book citations may be sufficiently numerous to support peer review for research evaluation, at least in the United Kingdom.

0.04861102 = product of:
  0.09722204 = sum of:
    0.09722204 = product of:
      0.19444408 = sum of:
        0.19444408 = weight(_text_:1,000 in 45) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19444408 = score(doc=45,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4242943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051146355 = queryNorm
            0.45827642 = fieldWeight in 45, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=45)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Biodiversity information organization is looking beyond the traditional document-level metadata approach and has started to look into factual content in textual documents to support more intelligent and semantic-based access. This article reports the development and evaluation of CharaParser, a software application for semantic annotation of morphological descriptions. CharaParser annotates semistructured morphological descriptions in such a detailed manner that all stated morphological characters of an organ are marked up in Extensible Markup Language format. Using an unsupervised machine learning algorithm and a general purpose syntactic parser as its key annotation tools, CharaParser requires minimal additional knowledge engineering work and seems to perform well across different description collections and/or taxon groups. The system has been formally evaluated on over 1,000 sentences randomly selected from Volume 19 of Flora of North American and Part H of Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. CharaParser reaches and exceeds 90% in sentence-wise recall and precision, exceeding other similar systems reported in the literature. It also significantly outperforms a heuristic rule-based system we developed earlier. Early evidence that enriching the lexicon of a syntactic parser with domain terms alone may be sufficient to adapt the parser for the biodiversity domain is also observed and may have significant implications.

0.04861102 = product of:
  0.09722204 = sum of:
    0.09722204 = product of:
      0.19444408 = sum of:
        0.19444408 = weight(_text_:1,000 in 237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19444408 = score(doc=237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4242943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051146355 = queryNorm
            0.45827642 = fieldWeight in 237, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=237)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We study the problem of question topic classification using a very large real-world Community Question Answering (CQA) dataset from Yahoo! Answers. The dataset comprises 3.9 million questions and these questions are organized into more than 1,000 categories in a hierarchy. To the best knowledge, this is the first systematic evaluation of the performance of different classification methods on question topic classification as well as short texts. Specifically, we empirically evaluate the following in classifying questions into CQA categories: (a) the usefulness of n-gram features and bag-of-word features; (b) the performance of three standard classification algorithms (naive Bayes, maximum entropy, and support vector machines); (c) the performance of the state-of-the-art hierarchical classification algorithms; (d) the effect of training data size on performance; and (e) the effectiveness of the different components of CQA data, including subject, content, asker, and the best answer. The experimental results show what aspects are important for question topic classification in terms of both effectiveness and efficiency. We believe that the experimental findings from this study will be useful in real-world classification problems.

0.04861102 = product of:
  0.09722204 = sum of:
    0.09722204 = product of:
      0.19444408 = sum of:
        0.19444408 = weight(_text_:1,000 in 1203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19444408 = score(doc=1203,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4242943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051146355 = queryNorm
            0.45827642 = fieldWeight in 1203, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1203)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Some 1,857 highly cited reviews, namely those cited at least 1,000 times since publication to 2011, were identified using the data hosted on the Science Citation Index ExpandedT database (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY) between 1899 and 2011. The data are disaggregated by publication date, citation counts, journals, Web of Science® (Thomson Reuters) subject areas, citation life cycles, and publications by Nobel Prize winners. Six indicators, total publications, independent publications, collaborative publications, first-author publications, corresponding-author publications, and single-author publications were applied to evaluate publication of institutions and countries. Among the highly cited reviews, 33% were single-author, 61% were single-institution, and 83% were single-country reviews. The United States ranked top for all 6 indicators. The G7 (United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, France, Japan, and Italy) countries were the site of almost all the highly cited reviews. The top 12 most productive institutions were all located in the United States with Harvard University (Cambridge, MA) the leader. The top 3 most productive journals were Chemical Reviews, Nature, and the Annual Review of Biochemistry. In addition, the impact of the reviews was analyzed by total citations from publication to 2011, citations in 2011, and citation in publication year.

0.04861102 = product of:
  0.09722204 = sum of:
    0.09722204 = product of:
      0.19444408 = sum of:
        0.19444408 = weight(_text_:1,000 in 1299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19444408 = score(doc=1299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4242943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051146355 = queryNorm
            0.45827642 = fieldWeight in 1299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.29569 = idf(docFreq=29, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a progressively debilitating neurodegenerative condition that occurs in adulthood and targets the motor neurons. Social support is crucial to the well-being and quality of life of people with unpredictable and incurable diseases such as ALS. Members of the PatientsLikeMe (PLM) ALS online support community share social support but also exchange and build distributed knowledge within their discussion forum. This qualitative analysis of 1,000 posts from the PLM ALS online discussion examines the social support within the PLM ALS online community and explores ways community members share and build knowledge. The analysis responds to 3 research questions: RQ1: How and why is knowledge shared among the distributed participants in the PLM-ALS threaded discussion forum?; RQ2: How do the participants in the PLM-ALS threaded discussion forum work together to discover knowledge about treatments and to keep knowledge discovered over time?; and RQ3: How do participants in the PLM-ALS forum co-create and treat authoritative knowledge from multiple sources including the medical literature, healthcare professionals, lived experiences of patients and "other" sources of information such as lay literature and alternative health providers? The findings have implications for supporting knowledge sharing and discovery in addition to social support for patients.