-
Thelwall, M.: Directing students to new information types : a new role for Google in literature searches? (2005)
0.04
0.042008284 = product of:
0.08401657 = sum of:
0.059705656 = weight(_text_:reference in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059705656 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = queryNorm
0.31464687 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
0.024310911 = product of:
0.048621822 = sum of:
0.048621822 = weight(_text_:services in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048621822 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = queryNorm
0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Series
- Internet reference services quarterly. 10(2005) nos.3/4
-
Thelwall, M.; Delgado, M.M.: Arts and humanities research evaluation : no metrics please, just data (2015)
0.01
0.012794068 = product of:
0.051176272 = sum of:
0.051176272 = weight(_text_:reference in 2313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051176272 = score(doc=2313,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = queryNorm
0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 2313, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2313)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Purpose The purpose of this paper is to make an explicit case for the use of data with contextual information as evidence in arts and humanities research evaluations rather than systematic metrics. Design/methodology/approach A survey of the strengths and limitations of citation-based indicators is combined with evidence about existing uses of wider impact data in the arts and humanities, with particular reference to the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework. Findings Data are already used as impact evidence in the arts and humanities but this practice should become more widespread. Practical implications Arts and humanities researchers should be encouraged to think creatively about the kinds of data that they may be able to generate in support of the value of their research and should not rely upon standardised metrics. Originality/value This paper combines practices emerging in the arts and humanities with research evaluation from a scientometric perspective to generate new recommendations.
-
Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? : Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals (2016)
0.01
0.012794068 = product of:
0.051176272 = sum of:
0.051176272 = weight(_text_:reference in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051176272 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = queryNorm
0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- In theory, articles can attract readers on the social reference sharing site Mendeley before they can attract citations, so Mendeley altmetrics could provide early indications of article impact. This article investigates the influence of time on the number of Mendeley readers of an article through a theoretical discussion and an investigation into the relationship between counts of readers of, and citations to, 4 general library and information science (LIS) journals. For this discipline, it takes about 7 years for articles to attract as many Scopus citations as Mendeley readers, and after this the Spearman correlation between readers and citers is stable at about 0.6 for all years. This suggests that Mendeley readership counts may be useful impact indicators for both newer and older articles. The lack of dates for individual Mendeley article readers and an unknown bias toward more recent articles mean that readership data should be normalized individually by year, however, before making any comparisons between articles published in different years.
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Academia.edu : Social network or Academic Network? (2014)
0.01
0.010661725 = product of:
0.0426469 = sum of:
0.0426469 = weight(_text_:reference in 1234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0426469 = score(doc=1234,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = queryNorm
0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 1234, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1234)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Academic social network sites Academia.edu and ResearchGate, and reference sharing sites Mendeley, Bibsonomy, Zotero, and CiteULike, give scholars the ability to publicize their research outputs and connect with each other. With millions of users, these are a significant addition to the scholarly communication and academic information-seeking eco-structure. There is thus a need to understand the role that they play and the changes, if any, that they can make to the dynamics of academic careers. This article investigates attributes of philosophy scholars on Academia.edu, introducing a median-based, time-normalizing method to adjust for time delays in joining the site. In comparison to students, faculty tend to attract more profile views but female philosophers did not attract more profile views than did males, suggesting that academic capital drives philosophy uses of the site more than does friendship and networking. Secondary analyses of law, history, and computer science confirmed the faculty advantage (in terms of higher profile views) except for females in law and females in computer science. There was also a female advantage for both faculty and students in law and computer science as well as for history students. Hence, Academia.edu overall seems to reflect a hybrid of scholarly norms (the faculty advantage) and a female advantage that is suggestive of general social networking norms. Finally, traditional bibliometric measures did not correlate with any Academia.edu metrics for philosophers, perhaps because more senior academics use the site less extensively or because of the range informal scholarly activities that cannot be measured by bibliometric methods.
-
Mohammadi , E.; Thelwall, M.: Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities : research evaluation and knowledge flows (2014)
0.01
0.010661725 = product of:
0.0426469 = sum of:
0.0426469 = weight(_text_:reference in 2190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0426469 = score(doc=2190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = queryNorm
0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 2190, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2190)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Although there is evidence that counting the readers of an article in the social reference site, Mendeley, may help to capture its research impact, the extent to which this is true for different scientific fields is unknown. In this study, we compare Mendeley readership counts with citations for different social sciences and humanities disciplines. The overall correlation between Mendeley readership counts and citations for the social sciences was higher than for the humanities. Low and medium correlations between Mendeley bookmarks and citation counts in all the investigated disciplines suggest that these measures reflect different aspects of research impact. Mendeley data were also used to discover patterns of information flow between scientific fields. Comparing information flows based on Mendeley bookmarking data and cross-disciplinary citation analysis for the disciplines revealed substantial similarities and some differences. Thus, the evidence from this study suggests that Mendeley readership data could be used to help capture knowledge transfer across scientific disciplines, especially for people that read but do not author articles, as well as giving impact evidence at an earlier stage than is possible with citation counts.
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
0.006319267 = product of:
0.025277069 = sum of:
0.025277069 = product of:
0.050554138 = sum of:
0.050554138 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050554138 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.01
0.005585496 = product of:
0.022341983 = sum of:
0.022341983 = product of:
0.044683967 = sum of:
0.044683967 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044683967 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011)
0.00
0.0047394503 = product of:
0.018957801 = sum of:
0.018957801 = product of:
0.037915602 = sum of:
0.037915602 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037915602 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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)
0.00
0.0047394503 = product of:
0.018957801 = sum of:
0.018957801 = product of:
0.037915602 = sum of:
0.037915602 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037915602 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.00
0.0047394503 = product of:
0.018957801 = sum of:
0.018957801 = product of:
0.037915602 = sum of:
0.037915602 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037915602 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.00
0.0047394503 = product of:
0.018957801 = sum of:
0.018957801 = product of:
0.037915602 = sum of:
0.037915602 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037915602 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
-
Thelwall, M.: Web indicators for research evaluation : a practical guide (2016)
0.00
0.004341234 = product of:
0.017364936 = sum of:
0.017364936 = product of:
0.034729872 = sum of:
0.034729872 = weight(_text_:services in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034729872 = score(doc=3384,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = queryNorm
0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Series
- Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services; 52
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.00
0.003949542 = product of:
0.015798168 = sum of:
0.015798168 = product of:
0.031596337 = sum of:
0.031596337 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031596337 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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)
0.00
0.003949542 = product of:
0.015798168 = sum of:
0.015798168 = product of:
0.031596337 = sum of:
0.031596337 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031596337 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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)
0.00
0.003949542 = product of:
0.015798168 = sum of:
0.015798168 = product of:
0.031596337 = sum of:
0.031596337 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031596337 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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)
0.00
0.003949542 = product of:
0.015798168 = sum of:
0.015798168 = product of:
0.031596337 = sum of:
0.031596337 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031596337 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.00
0.003949542 = product of:
0.015798168 = sum of:
0.015798168 = product of:
0.031596337 = sum of:
0.031596337 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031596337 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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)
0.00
0.003949542 = product of:
0.015798168 = sum of:
0.015798168 = product of:
0.031596337 = sum of:
0.031596337 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031596337 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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)
0.00
0.003949542 = product of:
0.015798168 = sum of:
0.015798168 = product of:
0.031596337 = sum of:
0.031596337 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031596337 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04664141 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
