Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.09976995 = sum of:
  0.029136134 = product of:
    0.11654454 = sum of:
      0.11654454 = weight(_text_:authors in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11654454 = score(doc=4633,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.49350607 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.070633814 = sum of:
    0.042559925 = weight(_text_:n in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042559925 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05180212 = queryNorm
        0.19055009 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    0.02807389 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02807389 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05180212 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX. Design/methodology/approach The authors perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, platform offers for books. The authors use two distinct data sets of books. On the one hand, the authors analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other hand, the authors use Clarivate's Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com's capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, the authors compare the findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX. Findings Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries, such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, the authors find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. The comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools. Practical implications This study targets different audience which can benefit from the findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool. Originality/value This is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com's functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via PlumX.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.031919945 = product of:
  0.06383989 = sum of:
    0.06383989 = product of:
      0.12767978 = sum of:
        0.12767978 = weight(_text_:n in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12767978 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.57165027 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0132999765 = product of:
  0.026599953 = sum of:
    0.026599953 = product of:
      0.053199906 = sum of:
        0.053199906 = weight(_text_:n in 500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053199906 = score(doc=500,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 500, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=500)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0132999765 = product of:
  0.026599953 = sum of:
    0.026599953 = product of:
      0.053199906 = sum of:
        0.053199906 = weight(_text_:n in 972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053199906 = score(doc=972,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 972, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=972)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0132999765 = product of:
  0.026599953 = sum of:
    0.026599953 = product of:
      0.053199906 = sum of:
        0.053199906 = weight(_text_:n in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053199906 = score(doc=3225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0074342364 = product of:
  0.014868473 = sum of:
    0.014868473 = product of:
      0.05947389 = sum of:
        0.05947389 = weight(_text_:authors in 1213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05947389 = score(doc=1213,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1213, 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=1213)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Google Scholar has been well received by the research community. Its promises of free, universal, and easy access to scientific literature coupled with the perception that it covers the social sciences and the humanities better than other traditional multidisciplinary databases have contributed to the quick expansion of Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: 2 new bibliometric products that offer citation data at the individual level and at journal level. In this article, we show the results of an experiment undertaken to analyze Google Scholar's capacity to detect citation-counting manipulation. For this, we uploaded 6 documents to an institutional web domain that were authored by a fictitious researcher and referenced all the publications of the members of the EC3 research group at the University of Granada. The detection by Google Scholar of these papers caused an outburst in the number of citations included in the Google Scholar Citations profiles of the authors. We discuss the effects of such an outburst and how it could affect the future development of such products, at both the individual level and the journal level, especially if Google Scholar persists with its lack of transparency.