-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.02
0.022235535 = product of:
0.04447107 = sum of:
0.04447107 = sum of:
0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007030784 = score(doc=4291,freq=6.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037440285 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = 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)
- Abstract
- Counts of tweets and Mendeley user libraries have been proposed as altmetric alternatives to citation counts for the impact assessment of articles. Although both have been investigated to discover whether they correlate with article citations, it is not known whether users tend to tweet or save (in Mendeley) the same kinds of articles that they cite. In response, this article compares pairs of articles that are tweeted, saved to a Mendeley library, or cited by the same user, but possibly a different user for each source. The study analyzes 1,131,318 articles published in 2012, with minimum tweeted (10), saved to Mendeley (100), and cited (10) thresholds. The results show surprisingly minor overall overlaps between the three phenomena. The importance of journals for Twitter and the presence of many bots at different levels of activity suggest that this site has little value for impact altmetrics. The moderate differences between patterns of saving and citation suggest that Mendeley can be used for some types of impact assessments, but sensitivity is needed for underlying differences.
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
- Type
- a
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology (2013)
0.00
0.0020296127 = product of:
0.0040592253 = sum of:
0.0040592253 = product of:
0.008118451 = sum of:
0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008118451 = score(doc=737,freq=8.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This study investigates a range of metrics available when a nanoscience and nanotechnology article is published to see which metrics correlate more with the number of citations to the article. It also introduces the degree of internationality of journals and references as new metrics for this purpose. The journal impact factor; the impact of references; the internationality of authors, journals, and references; and the number of authors, institutions, and references were all calculated for papers published in nanoscience and nanotechnology journals in the Web of Science from 2007 to 2009. Using a zero-inflated negative binomial regression model on the data set, the impact factor of the publishing journal and the citation impact of the cited references were found to be the most effective determinants of citation counts in all four time periods. In the entire 2007 to 2009 period, apart from journal internationality and author numbers and internationality, all other predictor variables had significant effects on citation counts.
- Type
- a
-
Gazni, A.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Didegah, F.: Mapping world scientific collaboration : authors, institutions, and countries (2012)
0.00
0.001757696 = product of:
0.003515392 = sum of:
0.003515392 = product of:
0.007030784 = sum of:
0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007030784 = score(doc=1141,freq=6.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1141, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1141)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- International collaboration is being heralded as the hallmark of contemporary scientific production. Yet little quantitative evidence has portrayed the landscape and trends of such collaboration. To this end, 14,000,000 documents indexed in Thomson Reuters's Web of Science (WoS) were studied to provide a state-of-the-art description of scientific collaborations across the world. The results indicate that the number of authors in the largest research teams have not significantly grown during the past decade; however, the number of smaller research teams has seen significant increases in growth. In terms of composition, the largest teams have become more diverse than the latter teams and tend more toward interinstitutional and international collaboration. Investigating the size of teams showed large variation between fields. Mapping scientific cooperation at the country level reveals that Western countries situated at the core of the map are extensively cooperating with each other. High-impact institutions are significantly more collaborative than others. This work should inform policy makers, administrators, and those interested in the progression of scientific collaboration.
- Type
- a
-
Didegah, F.; Bowman, T.D.; Holmberg, K.: On the differences between citations and altmetrics : an investigation of factors driving altmetrics versus citations for finnish articles (2018)
0.00
0.0016913437 = product of:
0.0033826875 = sum of:
0.0033826875 = product of:
0.006765375 = sum of:
0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 4258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006765375 = score(doc=4258,freq=8.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4258, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4258)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This study examines a range of factors associated with future citation and altmetric counts to a paper. The factors include journal impact factor, individual collaboration, international collaboration, institution prestige, country prestige, research funding, abstract readability, abstract length, title length, number of cited references, field size, and field type and will be modeled in association with citation counts, Mendeley readers, Twitter posts, Facebook posts, blog posts, and news posts. The results demonstrate that eight factors are important for increased citation counts, seven different factors are important for increased Mendeley readers, eight factors are important for increased Twitter posts, three factors are important for increased Facebook posts, six factors are important for increased blog posts, and five factors are important for increased news posts. Journal impact factor and international collaboration are the two factors that significantly associate with increased citation counts and with all altmetric scores. Moreover, it seems that the factors driving Mendeley readership are similar to those driving citation counts. However, the altmetric events differ from each other in terms of a small number of factors; for instance, institution prestige and country prestige associate with increased Mendeley readers and blog and news posts, but it is an insignificant factor for Twitter and Facebook posts. The findings contribute to the continued development of theoretical models and methodological developments associated with capturing, interpreting, and understanding altmetric events.
- Type
- a
