Search (173 results, page 1 of 9)

0.06286039 = product of:
  0.12572078 = sum of:
    0.12572078 = sum of:
      0.09534341 = weight(_text_:e.g in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09534341 = score(doc=994,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.40756583 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
      0.030377375 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030377375 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = 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)

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

0.048897676 = product of:
  0.09779535 = sum of:
    0.09779535 = sum of:
      0.06741798 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06741798 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.28819257 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.030377375 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030377375 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the disciplinary orientation of scientific publications that were mentioned on different social media platforms, focussing on their differences and similarities with citation counts. Design/methodology/approach - Social media metrics and readership counts, associated with 500,216 publications and their citation data from the Web of Science database, were collected from Altmetric.com and Mendeley. Results are presented through descriptive statistical analyses together with science maps generated with VOSviewer. Findings - The results confirm Mendeley as the most prevalent social media source with similar characteristics to citations in their distribution across fields and their density in average values per publication. The humanities, natural sciences, and engineering disciplines have a much lower presence of social media metrics. Twitter has a stronger focus on general medicine and social sciences. Other sources (blog, Facebook, Google+, and news media mentions) are more prominent in regards to multidisciplinary journals. Originality/value - This paper reinforces the relevance of Mendeley as a social media source for analytical purposes from a disciplinary perspective, being particularly relevant for the social sciences (together with Twitter). Key implications for the use of social media metrics on the evaluation of research performance (e.g. the concentration of some social media metrics, such as blogs, news items, etc., around multidisciplinary journals) are identified.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.03370899 = product of:
  0.06741798 = sum of:
    0.06741798 = product of:
      0.13483596 = sum of:
        0.13483596 = weight(_text_:e.g in 408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13483596 = score(doc=408,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.57638514 = fieldWeight in 408, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=408)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Explains how a closer look at how scientometricians aggregate building blocks into artfully made products, and point-represent these (e.g. as the map of field X) allows one to overcome the dependence on judgements of scientists for validation, and replace or complement these with intrinsic validation, based on quality checks of the several steps

0.03370899 = product of:
  0.06741798 = sum of:
    0.06741798 = product of:
      0.13483596 = sum of:
        0.13483596 = weight(_text_:e.g in 3792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13483596 = score(doc=3792,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.57638514 = fieldWeight in 3792, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3792)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Scientific journals publish an increasing number of articles every year. To steer readers' attention to the most important papers, journals use several techniques (e.g., lead paper). Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC), a leading international journal in chemistry, signals high-quality papers through designating them as a "very important paper" (VIP). This study aims to investigate the citation impact of Communications in AC receiving the special feature VIP, both cumulated and over time. Using propensity score matching, treatment group (VIP) and control group (non-VIP) were balanced for 14 covariates to estimate the unconfounded "average treatment effect on the treated" for the VIP designation. Out of N = 3,011 Communications published in 2007 and 2008, N = 207 received the special feature VIP. For each Communication, data were collected from AC (e.g., referees' ratings) and from the databases Chemical Abstracts (e.g., sections) and the Web of Science (e.g., citations). The estimated unconfounded average treatment effect on the treated (that is, Communications designated as a VIP) was statistically significant and amounted to 19.83 citations. In addition, the special feature VIP fostered the cumulated annual citation growth. For instance, the time until a Communication reached its maximum annual number of citations, was reduced.

0.029192839 = product of:
  0.058385678 = sum of:
    0.058385678 = product of:
      0.116771355 = sum of:
        0.116771355 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.116771355 = score(doc=1608,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.49916416 = fieldWeight in 1608, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Type/Token-Taken informetrics is a new part of informetrics that studies the use of items rather than the items itself. Here, items are the objects that are produced by the sources (e.g., journals producing articles, authors producing papers, etc.). In linguistics a source is also called a type (e.g., a word), and an item a token (e.g., the use of words in texts). In informetrics, types that occur often, for example, in a database will also be requested often, for example, in information retrieval. The relative use of these occurrences will be higher than their relative occurrences itself; hence, the name Type/ Token-Taken informetrics. This article studies the frequency distribution of Type/Token-Taken informetrics, starting from the one of Type/Token informetrics (i.e., source-item relationships). We are also studying the average number my* of item uses in Type/Token-Taken informetrics and compare this with the classical average number my in Type/Token informetrics. We show that my* >= my always, and that my* is an increasing function of my. A method is presented to actually calculate my* from my, and a given a, which is the exponent in Lotka's frequency distribution of Type/Token informetrics. We leave open the problem of developing non-Lotkaian Type/TokenTaken informetrics.

0.028603025 = product of:
  0.05720605 = sum of:
    0.05720605 = product of:
      0.1144121 = sum of:
        0.1144121 = weight(_text_:e.g in 3464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1144121 = score(doc=3464,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.489079 = fieldWeight in 3464, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The discrete Lotka power function describes the number of sources (e.g., authors) with n = 1, 2, 3, ... items (e.g., publications). As in econometrics, informetrics theory requires functions of a continuous variable j, replacing the discrete variable n. Now j represents item densities instead of number of items. The continuous Lotka power function describes the density of sources with item density j. The discrete Lotka function one obtains from data, obtained empirically; the continuous Lotka function is the one needed when one wants to apply Lotkaian informetrics, i.e., to determine properties that can be derived from the (continuous) model. It is, hence, important to know the relations between the two models. We show that the exponents of the discrete Lotka function (if not too high, i.e., within limits encountered in practice) and of the continuous Lotka function are approximately the same. This is important to know in applying theoretical results (from the continuous model), derived from practical data.

0.028603025 = product of:
  0.05720605 = sum of:
    0.05720605 = product of:
      0.1144121 = sum of:
        0.1144121 = weight(_text_:e.g in 3298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1144121 = score(doc=3298,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.489079 = fieldWeight in 3298, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3298)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study uses citations, from 1996 to 2007, to the work of 80 randomly selected full-time, information studies (IS) faculty members from North America to examine differences between Scopus and Web of Science in assessing the scholarly impact of the field focusing on the most frequently citing journals, conference proceedings, research domains and institutions, as well as all citing countries. Results show that when assessment is limited to smaller citing entities (e.g., journals, conference proceedings, institutions), the two databases produce considerably different results, whereas when assessment is limited to larger citing entities (e.g., research domains, countries), the two databases produce very similar pictures of scholarly impact. In the former case, the use of Scopus (for journals and institutions) and both Scopus and Web of Science (for conference proceedings) is necessary to more accurately assess or visualize the scholarly impact of IS, whereas in the latter case, assessing or visualizing the scholarly impact of IS is independent of the database used.

0.028603025 = product of:
  0.05720605 = sum of:
    0.05720605 = product of:
      0.1144121 = sum of:
        0.1144121 = weight(_text_:e.g in 242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1144121 = score(doc=242,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.489079 = fieldWeight in 242, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=242)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Characteristics of the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology and 76 other journals listed in the InformationSystems category of the Journal Citation Reports-Science edition 2009 were analyzed. Besides reporting usual bibliographic indicators, we investigated the human cornerstone of any peer-reviewed journal: its editorial board. Demographic data about the 2,846 gatekeepers serving in information systems (IS) editorial boards were collected. We discuss various scientometric indicators supported by descriptive statistics. Our findings reflect the great variety of IS journals in terms of research output, author communities, editorial boards, and gatekeeper demographics (e.g., diversity in gender and location), seniority, authority, and degree of involvement in editorial boards. We believe that these results may help the general public and scholars (e.g., readers, authors, journal gatekeepers, policy makers) to revise and increase their knowledge of scholarly communication in the IS field. The EB_IS_2009 dataset supporting this scientometric study is released as online supplementary material to this article to foster further research on editorial boards.

0.026967188 = product of:
  0.053934377 = sum of:
    0.053934377 = product of:
      0.10786875 = sum of:
        0.10786875 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10786875 = score(doc=2351,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.4611081 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A time-dependent h-type indicator is proposed. This indicator depends on the size of the h-core, the number of citations received, and recent change in the value of the h-index. As such, it tries to combine in a dynamic way older information about the source (e.g., a scientist or research institute that is evaluated) with recent information.

0.026967188 = product of:
  0.053934377 = sum of:
    0.053934377 = product of:
      0.10786875 = sum of:
        0.10786875 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10786875 = score(doc=2849,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.4611081 = fieldWeight in 2849, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Scoring rules (or score-based rankings or summation-based rankings) form a family of bibliometric rankings of authors such that authors are ranked according to the sum over all their publications of some partial scores. Many of these rankings are widely used (e.g., number of publications, weighted or not by the impact factor, by the number of authors, or by the number of citations). We present an axiomatic analysis of the family of all scoring rules and of some particular cases within this family.

0.0243019 = product of:
  0.0486038 = sum of:
    0.0486038 = product of:
      0.0972076 = sum of:
        0.0972076 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0972076 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419

0.0243019 = product of:
  0.0486038 = sum of:
    0.0486038 = product of:
      0.0972076 = sum of:
        0.0972076 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0972076 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.0243019 = product of:
  0.0486038 = sum of:
    0.0486038 = product of:
      0.0972076 = sum of:
        0.0972076 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0972076 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22

0.023835853 = product of:
  0.047671705 = sum of:
    0.047671705 = product of:
      0.09534341 = sum of:
        0.09534341 = weight(_text_:e.g in 271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09534341 = score(doc=271,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40756583 = fieldWeight in 271, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Herdan's law in linguistics and Heaps' law in information retrieval are different formulations of the same phenomenon. Stated briefly and in linguistic terms they state that vocabularies' sizes are concave increasing power laws of texts' sizes. This study investigates these laws from a purely mathematical and informetric point of view. A general informetric argument shows that the problem of proving these laws is, in fact, ill-posed. Using the more general terminology of sources and items, the author shows by presenting exact formulas from Lotkaian informetrics that the total number T of sources is not only a function of the total number A of items, but is also a function of several parameters (e.g., the parameters occurring in Lotka's law). Consequently, it is shown that a fixed T(or A) value can lead to different possible A (respectively, T) values. Limiting the T(A)-variability to increasing samples (e.g., in a text as done in linguistics) the author then shows, in a purely mathematical way, that for large sample sizes T~ A**phi, where phi is a constant, phi < 1 but close to 1, hence roughly, Heaps' or Herdan's law can be proved without using any linguistic or informetric argument. The author also shows that for smaller samples, a is not a constant but essentially decreases as confirmed by practical examples. Finally, an exact informetric argument on random sampling in the items shows that, in most cases, T= T(A) is a concavely increasing function, in accordance with practical examples.

0.023835853 = product of:
  0.047671705 = sum of:
    0.047671705 = product of:
      0.09534341 = sum of:
        0.09534341 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09534341 = score(doc=2861,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40756583 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this study, we investigate whether there is a need for the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures (SBMs). Results from our recent study (L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, & H.-D. Daniel, 2008) have indicated that there are two types of indices: One type of indices (e.g., h index) describes the most productive core of a scientist's output and informs about the number of papers in the core. The other type of indices (e.g., a index) depicts the impact of the papers in the core. In evaluative bibliometric studies, the two dimensions quantity and quality of output are usually assessed using the SBMs number of publications (for the quantity dimension) and total citation counts (for the impact dimension). We additionally included the SBMs into the factor analysis. The results of the newly calculated analysis indicate that there is a high intercorrelation between number of publications and the indices that load substantially on the factor Quantity of the Productive Core as well as between total citation counts and the indices that load substantially on the factor Impact of the Productive Core. The high-loading indices and SBMs within one performance dimension could be called redundant in empirical application, as high intercorrelations between different indicators are a sign for measuring something similar (or the same). Based on our findings, we propose the use of any pair of indicators (one relating to the number of papers in a researcher's productive core and one relating to the impact of these core papers) as a meaningful approach for comparing scientists.

0.023835853 = product of:
  0.047671705 = sum of:
    0.047671705 = product of:
      0.09534341 = sum of:
        0.09534341 = weight(_text_:e.g in 4768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09534341 = score(doc=4768,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40756583 = fieldWeight in 4768, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4768)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Here, we show a longitudinal analysis of the ranking of the subject areas of Elsevier's Scopus. To this aim, we present three summary measures based on the journal ranking scores for academic journals in each subject area. This longitudinal study allows us to analyze developmental trends over times in different subject areas with distinct citation and publication patterns. We evaluate the relative performance of each subject area by using the overall prestige for the most important journals with ranking score above a given threshold (e.g., in the first quartile) as well as the overall prestige gap for the less important journals with ranking score below a given threshold (e.g., below the top 10 journals). Thus, we propose that it should be possible to study different subject areas by means of appropriate summary measures of the journal ranking scores, which provide additional information beyond analyzing the inequality of the whole ranking-score distribution for academic journals in each subject area. It allows us to investigate whether subject areas with high levels of overall prestige for the first quartile journals also tended to achieve low levels of overall prestige gap for the journals below the top 10.

0.023835853 = product of:
  0.047671705 = sum of:
    0.047671705 = product of:
      0.09534341 = sum of:
        0.09534341 = weight(_text_:e.g in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09534341 = score(doc=382,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40756583 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although there is some evidence that online videos are increasingly used by academics for informal scholarly communication and teaching, the extent to which they are used in published academic research is unknown. This article explores the extent to which YouTube videos are cited in academic publications and whether there are significant broad disciplinary differences in this practice. To investigate, we extracted the URL citations to YouTube videos from academic publications indexed by Scopus. A total of 1,808 Scopus publications cited at least one YouTube video, and there was a steady upward growth in citing online videos within scholarly publications from 2006 to 2011, with YouTube citations being most common within arts and humanities (0.3%) and the social sciences (0.2%). A content analysis of 551 YouTube videos cited by research articles indicated that in science (78%) and in medicine and health sciences (77%), over three fourths of the cited videos had either direct scientific (e.g., laboratory experiments) or scientific-related contents (e.g., academic lectures or education) whereas in the arts and humanities, about 80% of the YouTube videos had art, culture, or history themes, and in the social sciences, about 63% of the videos were related to news, politics, advertisements, and documentaries. This shows both the disciplinary differences and the wide variety of innovative research communication uses found for videos within the different subject areas.

0.023835853 = product of:
  0.047671705 = sum of:
    0.047671705 = product of:
      0.09534341 = sum of:
        0.09534341 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09534341 = score(doc=1621,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40756583 = fieldWeight in 1621, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The intent of this article is to use cooperative game theory to predict the level of social impact of scholarly papers created by citation networks. Social impact of papers can be defined as the net effect of citations on a network. A publication exerts direct and indirect influence on others (e.g., by citing articles) and is itself influenced directly and indirectly (e.g., by cited articles). This network leads to an influence structure of citing and cited publications. Drawing on cooperative game theory, our research problem is to translate into mathematical equations the rules that govern the social impact of a paper in a citation network. In this article, we show that when citation relationships between academic papers function within a citation structure, the result is social impact instead of the (individual) citation impact of each paper. Mathematical equations explain the interaction between papers in such a citation structure. The equations show that the social impact of a paper is affected by the (individual) citation impact of citing publications, immediacy of citing articles, and number of both citing and cited papers. Examples are provided for several academic papers.

0.023835853 = product of:
  0.047671705 = sum of:
    0.047671705 = product of:
      0.09534341 = sum of:
        0.09534341 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09534341 = score(doc=2226,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40756583 = fieldWeight in 2226, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, 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.

0.023835853 = product of:
  0.047671705 = sum of:
    0.047671705 = product of:
      0.09534341 = sum of:
        0.09534341 = weight(_text_:e.g in 445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09534341 = score(doc=445,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40756583 = fieldWeight in 445, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=445)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To determine the author of a text's gender, various feature types have been suggested (e.g., function words, n-gram of letters, etc.) leading to a huge number of stylistic markers. To determine the target category, different machine learning models have been suggested (e.g., logistic regression, decision tree, k nearest-neighbors, support vector machine, naïve Bayes, neural networks, and random forest). In this study, our first objective is to know whether or not the same model always proposes the best effectiveness when considering similar corpora under the same conditions. Thus, based on 7 CLEF-PAN collections, this study analyzes the effectiveness of 10 different classifiers. Our second aim is to propose a 2-stage feature selection to reduce the feature size to a few hundred terms without any significant change in the performance level compared to approaches using all the attributes (increase of around 5% after applying the proposed feature selection). Based on our experiments, neural network or random forest tend, on average, to produce the highest effectiveness. Moreover, empirical evidence indicates that reducing the feature set size to around 300 without penalizing the effectiveness is possible. Finally, based on such reduced feature sizes, an analysis reveals some of the specific terms that clearly discriminate between the 2 genders.