-
Thelwall, M.; Bourrier, M.K.: ¬The reading background of Goodreads book club members : a female fiction canon? (2019)
0.02
0.018671993 = product of:
0.056015976 = sum of:
0.056015976 = product of:
0.11203195 = sum of:
0.11203195 = weight(_text_:group in 5461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11203195 = score(doc=5461,freq=8.0), product of:
0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
0.047327764 = queryNorm
0.5114056 = fieldWeight in 5461, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5461)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose Despite the social, educational and therapeutic benefits of book clubs, little is known about which books participants are likely to have read. In response, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the public bookshelves of those that have joined a group within the Goodreads social network site. Design/methodology/approach Books listed as read by members of 50 large English-language Goodreads groups - with a genre focus or other theme - were compiled by author and title. Findings Recent and youth-oriented fiction dominate the 50 books most read by book club members, whilst almost half are works of literature frequently taught at the secondary and postsecondary level (literary classics). Whilst J.K. Rowling is almost ubiquitous (at least 63 per cent as frequently listed as other authors in any group, including groups for other genres), most authors, including Shakespeare (15 per cent), Goulding (6 per cent) and Hemmingway (9 per cent), are little read by some groups. Nor are individual recent literary prize winners or works in languages other than English frequently read. Research limitations/implications Although these results are derived from a single popular website, knowing more about what book club members are likely to have read should help participants, organisers and moderators. For example, recent literary prize winners might be a good choice, given that few members may have read them. Originality/value This is the first large scale study of book group members' reading patterns. Whilst typical reading is likely to vary by group theme and average age, there seems to be a mainly female canon of about 14 authors and 19 books that Goodreads book club members are likely to have read.
-
Barjak, F.; Thelwall, M.: ¬A statistical analysis of the web presences of European life sciences research teams (2008)
0.02
0.016170422 = product of:
0.048511263 = sum of:
0.048511263 = product of:
0.097022526 = sum of:
0.097022526 = weight(_text_:group in 1383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.097022526 = score(doc=1383,freq=6.0), product of:
0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
0.047327764 = queryNorm
0.44289026 = fieldWeight in 1383, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1383)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Web links have been used for around ten years to explore the online impact of academic information and information producers. Nevertheless, few studies have attempted to relate link counts to relevant offline attributes of the owners of the targeted Web sites, with the exception of research productivity. This article reports the results of a study to relate site inlink counts to relevant owner characteristics for over 400 European life-science research group Web sites. The analysis confirmed that research-group size and Web-presence size were important for attracting Web links, although research productivity was not. Little evidence was found for significant influence of any of an array of factors, including research-group leader gender and industry connections. In addition, the choice of search engine for link data created a surprising international difference in the results, with Google perhaps giving unreliable results. Overall, the data collection, statistical analysis and results interpretation were all complex and it seems that we still need to know more about search engines, hyperlinks, and their function in science before we can draw conclusions on their usefulness and role in the canon of science and technology indicators.
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
0.008549679 = product of:
0.025649035 = sum of:
0.025649035 = product of:
0.05129807 = sum of:
0.05129807 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05129807 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047327764 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.01
0.00755692 = product of:
0.022670759 = sum of:
0.022670759 = product of:
0.045341518 = sum of:
0.045341518 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045341518 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047327764 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 12:43:51
-
Sud, P.; Thelwall, M.: Not all international collaboration is beneficial : the Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration (2016)
0.01
0.007468797 = product of:
0.02240639 = sum of:
0.02240639 = product of:
0.04481278 = sum of:
0.04481278 = weight(_text_:group in 3048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04481278 = score(doc=3048,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
0.047327764 = queryNorm
0.20456223 = fieldWeight in 3048, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3048)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- This study aims to identify the way researchers collaborate with other researchers in the course of the scientific research life cycle and provide information to the designers of e-Science and e-Research implementations. On the basis of in-depth interviews with and on-site observations of 24 scientists and a follow-up focus group interview in the field of bioscience/nanoscience and technology in Korea, we examined scientific collaboration using the framework of the scientific research life cycle. We attempt to explain the major motiBiochemistry is a highly funded research area that is typified by large research teams and is important for many areas of the life sciences. This article investigates the citation impact and Mendeley readership impact of biochemistry research from 2011 in the Web of Science according to the type of collaboration involved. Negative binomial regression models are used that incorporate, for the first time, the inclusion of specific countries within a team. The results show that, holding other factors constant, larger teams robustly associate with higher impact research, but including additional departments has no effect and adding extra institutions tends to reduce the impact of research. Although international collaboration is apparently not advantageous in general, collaboration with the United States, and perhaps also with some other countries, seems to increase impact. In contrast, collaborations with some other nations seems to decrease impact, although both findings could be due to factors such as differing national proportions of excellent researchers. As a methodological implication, simpler statistical models would find international collaboration to be generally beneficial and so it is important to take into account specific countries when examining collaboration.t only in the beginning phase of the cycle. For communication and information-sharing practices, scientists continue to favor traditional means of communication for security reasons. Barriers to collaboration throughout the phases included different priorities, competitive tensions, and a hierarchical culture among collaborators, whereas credit sharing was a barrier in the research product phase.
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011)
0.01
0.0064122584 = product of:
0.019236775 = sum of:
0.019236775 = product of:
0.03847355 = sum of:
0.03847355 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03847355 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047327764 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, 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=4345)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:27:06
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.01
0.0064122584 = product of:
0.019236775 = sum of:
0.019236775 = product of:
0.03847355 = sum of:
0.03847355 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03847355 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047327764 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.01
0.0064122584 = product of:
0.019236775 = sum of:
0.019236775 = product of:
0.03847355 = sum of:
0.03847355 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03847355 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047327764 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.01
0.0064122584 = product of:
0.019236775 = sum of:
0.019236775 = product of:
0.03847355 = sum of:
0.03847355 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03847355 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047327764 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.01
0.005343549 = product of:
0.016030647 = sum of:
0.016030647 = product of:
0.032061294 = sum of:
0.032061294 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032061294 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047327764 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.01
0.005343549 = product of:
0.016030647 = sum of:
0.016030647 = product of:
0.032061294 = sum of:
0.032061294 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032061294 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047327764 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:29:23
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.01
0.005343549 = product of:
0.016030647 = sum of:
0.016030647 = product of:
0.032061294 = sum of:
0.032061294 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032061294 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047327764 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, 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=57)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 6. 4.2012 18:16:22
-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.01
0.005343549 = product of:
0.016030647 = sum of:
0.016030647 = product of:
0.032061294 = sum of:
0.032061294 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032061294 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047327764 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.01
0.005343549 = product of:
0.016030647 = sum of:
0.016030647 = product of:
0.032061294 = sum of:
0.032061294 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032061294 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047327764 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3806, 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=3806)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.01
0.005343549 = product of:
0.016030647 = sum of:
0.016030647 = product of:
0.032061294 = sum of:
0.032061294 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032061294 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047327764 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
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)
0.01
0.005343549 = product of:
0.016030647 = sum of:
0.016030647 = product of:
0.032061294 = sum of:
0.032061294 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032061294 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047327764 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
