Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012549935 = product of:
  0.02509987 = sum of:
    0.018093241 = product of:
      0.036186483 = sum of:
        0.036186483 = weight(_text_:p in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036186483 = score(doc=3809,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.1239606 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.29191923 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.007006629 = product of:
      0.014013258 = sum of:
        0.014013258 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014013258 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120730735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This year marks 350 years since the inaugural publications of both the Journal des Sçavans and the Philosophical Transactions, first published in 1665 and considered the birth of the peer-reviewed journal article. This form of scholarly communication has not only remained the dominant model for disseminating new knowledge (particularly for science and medicine), but has also increased substantially in volume. Derek de Solla Price - the "father of scientometrics" (Merton and Garfield, 1986, p. vii) - was the first to document the exponential increase in scientific journals and showed that "scientists have always felt themselves to be awash in a sea of the scientific literature" (Price, 1963, p. 15), as, for example, expressed at the 1948 Royal Society's Scientific Information Conference: Not for the first time in history, but more acutely than ever before, there was a fear that scientists would be overwhelmed, that they would be no longer able to control the vast amounts of potentially relevant material that were pouring forth from the world's presses, that science itself was under threat (Bawden and Robinson, 2008, p. 183).
One of the solutions to help scientists filter the most relevant publications and, thus, to stay current on developments in their fields during the transition from "little science" to "big science", was the introduction of citation indexing as a Wellsian "World Brain" (Garfield, 1964) of scientific information: It is too much to expect a research worker to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the bibliographic descendants of antecedent papers. It would not be excessive to demand that the thorough scholar check all papers that have cited or criticized such papers, if they could be located quickly. The citation index makes this check practicable (Garfield, 1955, p. 108). In retrospective, citation indexing can be perceived as a pre-social web version of crowdsourcing, as it is based on the concept that the community of citing authors outperforms indexers in highlighting cognitive links between papers, particularly on the level of specific ideas and concepts (Garfield, 1983). Over the last 50 years, citation analysis and more generally, bibliometric methods, have developed from information retrieval tools to research evaluation metrics, where they are presumed to make scientific funding more efficient and effective (Moed, 2006). However, the dominance of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has also led to significant goal displacement (Merton, 1957) and the oversimplification of notions of "research productivity" and "scientific quality", creating adverse effects such as salami publishing, honorary authorships, citation cartels, and misuse of indicators (Binswanger, 2015; Cronin and Sugimoto, 2014; Frey and Osterloh, 2006; Haustein and Larivière, 2015; Weingart, 2005).
Furthermore, the rise of the web, and subsequently, the social web, has challenged the quasi-monopolistic status of the journal as the main form of scholarly communication and citation indices as the primary assessment mechanisms. Scientific communication is becoming more open, transparent, and diverse: publications are increasingly open access; manuscripts, presentations, code, and data are shared online; research ideas and results are discussed and criticized openly on blogs; and new peer review experiments, with open post publication assessment by anonymous or non-anonymous referees, are underway. The diversification of scholarly production and assessment, paired with the increasing speed of the communication process, leads to an increased information overload (Bawden and Robinson, 2008), demanding new filters. The concept of altmetrics, short for alternative (to citation) metrics, was created out of an attempt to provide a filter (Priem et al., 2010) and to steer against the oversimplification of the measurement of scientific success solely on the basis of number of journal articles published and citations received, by considering a wider range of research outputs and metrics (Piwowar, 2013). Although the term altmetrics was introduced in a tweet in 2010 (Priem, 2010), the idea of capturing traces - "polymorphous mentioning" (Cronin et al., 1998, p. 1320) - of scholars and their documents on the web to measure "impact" of science in a broader manner than citations was introduced years before, largely in the context of webometrics (Almind and Ingwersen, 1997; Thelwall et al., 2005):
There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.012132276 = product of:
  0.024264552 = sum of:
    0.012310892 = product of:
      0.024621785 = sum of:
        0.024621785 = weight(_text_:p in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024621785 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1239606 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.011953659 = product of:
      0.023907319 = sum of:
        0.023907319 = weight(_text_:b in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023907319 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12214884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

MELIBEA is a directory of institutional open-access policies for research output that uses a composite formula with eight weighted conditions to estimate the "strength" of open access (OA) mandates (registered in ROARMAP). We analyzed total Web of Science-(WoS)-indexed publication output in years 2011-2013 for 67 institutions in which OA was mandated to estimate the mandates' effectiveness: How well did the MELIBEA score and its individual conditions predict what percentage of the WoS-indexed articles is actually deposited in each institution's OA repository, and when? We found a small but significant positive correlation (0.18) between the MELIBEA "strength" score and deposit percentage. For three of the eight MELIBEA conditions (deposit timing, internal use, and opt-outs), one value of each was strongly associated with deposit percentage or latency ([a] immediate deposit required; [b] deposit required for performance evaluation; [c] unconditional opt-out allowed for the OA requirement but no opt-out for deposit requirement). When we updated the initial values and weights of the MELIBEA formula to reflect the empirical association we had found, the score's predictive power for mandate effectiveness doubled (0.36). There are not yet enough OA mandates to test further mandate conditions that might contribute to mandate effectiveness, but the present findings already suggest that it would be productive for existing and future mandates to adopt the three identified conditions so as to maximize their effectiveness, and thereby the growth of OA.

0.005176087 = product of:
  0.020704348 = sum of:
    0.020704348 = product of:
      0.041408695 = sum of:
        0.041408695 = weight(_text_:b in 1285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041408695 = score(doc=1285,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.12214884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.33900195 = fieldWeight in 1285, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Since its creation in 1991, arXiv has become central to the diffusion of research in a number of fields. Combining data from the entirety of arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS), this article investigates (a) the proportion of papers across all disciplines that are on arXiv and the proportion of arXiv papers that are in the WoS, (b) the elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication, and (c) the aging characteristics and scientific impact of arXiv e-prints and their published version. It shows that the proportion of WoS papers found on arXiv varies across the specialties of physics and mathematics, and that only a few specialties make extensive use of the repository. Elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication has shortened but remains longer in mathematics than in physics. In physics, mathematics, as well as in astronomy and astrophysics, arXiv versions are cited more promptly and decay faster than WoS papers. The arXiv versions of papers-both published and unpublished-have lower citation rates than published papers, although there is almost no difference in the impact of the arXiv versions of published and unpublished papers.

0.0049544354 = product of:
  0.019817742 = sum of:
    0.019817742 = product of:
      0.039635483 = sum of:
        0.039635483 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039635483 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.120730735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.0036932675 = product of:
  0.01477307 = sum of:
    0.01477307 = product of:
      0.02954614 = sum of:
        0.02954614 = weight(_text_:p in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02954614 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1239606 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0035860979 = product of:
  0.014344391 = sum of:
    0.014344391 = product of:
      0.028688783 = sum of:
        0.028688783 = weight(_text_:b in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028688783 = score(doc=2337,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12214884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.003077723 = product of:
  0.012310892 = sum of:
    0.012310892 = product of:
      0.024621785 = sum of:
        0.024621785 = weight(_text_:p in 2769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024621785 = score(doc=2769,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1239606 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 2769, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2769)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0029884148 = product of:
  0.011953659 = sum of:
    0.011953659 = product of:
      0.023907319 = sum of:
        0.023907319 = weight(_text_:b in 4943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023907319 = score(doc=4943,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12214884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 4943, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4943)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0029884148 = product of:
  0.011953659 = sum of:
    0.011953659 = product of:
      0.023907319 = sum of:
        0.023907319 = weight(_text_:b in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023907319 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12214884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)