Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.08203001 = sum of:
  0.015122154 = product of:
    0.060488615 = sum of:
      0.060488615 = weight(_text_:authors in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060488615 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24018547 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052685954 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.06690786 = sum of:
    0.031216761 = weight(_text_:m in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031216761 = score(doc=995,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052685954 = queryNorm
        0.2381027 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.035691097 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035691097 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18449724 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052685954 = 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)

Abstract

Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50

0.027866345 = sum of:
  0.015122154 = product of:
    0.060488615 = sum of:
      0.060488615 = weight(_text_:authors in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060488615 = score(doc=3768,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24018547 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052685954 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 3768, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3768)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01274419 = product of:
    0.02548838 = sum of:
      0.02548838 = weight(_text_:m in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02548838 = score(doc=3768,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052685954 = queryNorm
          0.19441006 = fieldWeight in 3768, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3768)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although peer-review and citation counts are commonly used to help assess the scholarly impact of published research, informal reader feedback might also be exploited to help assess the wider impacts of books, such as their educational or cultural value. The social website Goodreads seems to be a reasonable source for this purpose because it includes a large number of book reviews and ratings by many users inside and outside of academia. To check this, Goodreads book metrics were compared with different book-based impact indicators for 15,928 academic books across broad fields. Goodreads engagements were numerous enough in the arts (85% of books had at least one), humanities (80%), and social sciences (67%) for use as a source of impact evidence. Low and moderate correlations between Goodreads book metrics and scholarly or non-scholarly indicators suggest that reader feedback in Goodreads reflects the many purposes of books rather than a single type of impact. Although Goodreads book metrics can be manipulated, they could be used guardedly by academics, authors, and publishers in evaluations.

0.0078041903 = product of:
  0.015608381 = sum of:
    0.015608381 = product of:
      0.031216761 = sum of:
        0.031216761 = weight(_text_:m in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031216761 = score(doc=947,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052685954 = queryNorm
            0.2381027 = fieldWeight in 947, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=947)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0078041903 = product of:
  0.015608381 = sum of:
    0.015608381 = product of:
      0.031216761 = sum of:
        0.031216761 = weight(_text_:m in 1033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031216761 = score(doc=1033,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052685954 = queryNorm
            0.2381027 = fieldWeight in 1033, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1033)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.006372095 = product of:
  0.01274419 = sum of:
    0.01274419 = product of:
      0.02548838 = sum of:
        0.02548838 = weight(_text_:m in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02548838 = score(doc=382,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052685954 = queryNorm
            0.19441006 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)