-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Patent citation analysis with Google (2017)
0.12
0.11876793 = product of:
0.29691982 = sum of:
0.29377487 = weight(_text_:patent in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.29377487 = score(doc=3317,freq=22.0), product of:
0.24282473 = queryWeight, product of:
6.603137 = idf(docFreq=162, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
1.2098227 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
6.603137 = idf(docFreq=162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
0.0031449592 = product of:
0.012579837 = sum of:
0.012579837 = weight(_text_:m in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012579837 = score(doc=3317,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Citations from patents to scientific publications provide useful evidence about the commercial impact of academic research, but automatically searchable databases are needed to exploit this connection for large-scale patent citation evaluations. Google covers multiple different international patent office databases but does not index patent citations or allow automatic searches. In response, this article introduces a semiautomatic indirect method via Bing to extract and filter patent citations from Google to academic papers with an overall precision of 98%. The method was evaluated with 322,192 science and engineering Scopus articles from every second year for the period 1996-2012. Although manual Google Patent searches give more results, especially for articles with many patent citations, the difference is not large enough to be a major problem. Within Biomedical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Pharmacology & Pharmaceutics, 7% to 10% of Scopus articles had at least one patent citation but other fields had far fewer, so patent citation analysis is only relevant for a minority of publications. Low but positive correlations between Google Patent citations and Scopus citations across all fields suggest that traditional citation counts cannot substitute for patent citations when evaluating research.
-
Orduna-Malea, E.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Web citations in patents : evidence of technological impact? (2017)
0.08
0.07515066 = product of:
0.18787664 = sum of:
0.18410268 = weight(_text_:patent in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18410268 = score(doc=3764,freq=6.0), product of:
0.24282473 = queryWeight, product of:
6.603137 = idf(docFreq=162, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.7581711 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
6.603137 = idf(docFreq=162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
0.0037739512 = product of:
0.015095805 = sum of:
0.015095805 = weight(_text_:m in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015095805 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.1649624 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Patents sometimes cite webpages either as general background to the problem being addressed or to identify prior publications that limit the scope of the patent granted. Counts of the number of patents citing an organization's website may therefore provide an indicator of its technological capacity or relevance. This article introduces methods to extract URL citations from patents and evaluates the usefulness of counts of patent web citations as a technology indicator. An analysis of patents citing 200 US universities or 177 UK universities found computer science and engineering departments to be frequently cited, as well as research-related webpages, such as Wikipedia, YouTube, or the Internet Archive. Overall, however, patent URL citations seem to be frequent enough to be useful for ranking major US and the top few UK universities if popular hosted subdomains are filtered out, but the hit count estimates on the first search engine results page should not be relied upon for accuracy.
-
Thelwall, M.: Bibliometrics to webometrics (2009)
0.05
0.051363993 = product of:
0.12840998 = sum of:
0.12400703 = weight(_text_:patent in 4239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12400703 = score(doc=4239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24282473 = queryWeight, product of:
6.603137 = idf(docFreq=162, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.5106853 = fieldWeight in 4239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.603137 = idf(docFreq=162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4239)
0.004402943 = product of:
0.017611772 = sum of:
0.017611772 = weight(_text_:m in 4239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017611772 = score(doc=4239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.19245613 = fieldWeight in 4239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4239)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Bibliometrics has changed out of all recognition since 1958; becoming established as a field, being taught widely in library and information science schools, and being at the core of a number of science evaluation research groups around the world. This was all made possible by the work of Eugene Garfield and his Science Citation Index. This article reviews the distance that bibliometrics has travelled since 1958 by comparing early bibliometrics with current practice, and by giving an overview of a range of recent developments, such as patent analysis, national research evaluation exercises, visualization techniques, new applications, online citation indexes, and the creation of digital libraries. Webometrics, a modern, fast-growing offshoot of bibliometrics, is reviewed in detail. Finally, future prospects are discussed with regard to both bibliometrics and webometrics.
-
Thelwall, M.; Klitkou, A.; Verbeek, A.; Stuart, D.; Vincent, C.: Policy-relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields (2010)
0.04
0.044026274 = product of:
0.11006568 = sum of:
0.10629173 = weight(_text_:patent in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10629173 = score(doc=3574,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24282473 = queryWeight, product of:
6.603137 = idf(docFreq=162, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.43773025 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.603137 = idf(docFreq=162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
0.0037739512 = product of:
0.015095805 = sum of:
0.015095805 = weight(_text_:m in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015095805 = score(doc=3574,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.1649624 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Despite over 10 years of research there is no agreement on the most suitable roles for Webometric indicators in support of research policy and almost no field-based Webometrics. This article partly fills these gaps by analyzing the potential of policy-relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields with the help of 4 case studies. Although Webometrics cannot provide robust indicators of knowledge flows or research impact, it can provide some evidence of networking and mutual awareness. The scope of Webometrics is also relatively wide, including not only research organizations and firms but also intermediary groups like professional associations, Web portals, and government agencies. Webometrics can, therefore, provide evidence about the research process to compliment peer review, bibliometric, and patent indicators: tracking the early, mainly prepublication development of new fields and research funding initiatives, assessing the role and impact of intermediary organizations and the need for new ones, and monitoring the extent of mutual awareness in particular research areas.
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.02
0.023059575 = product of:
0.057648934 = sum of:
0.027655507 = weight(_text_:und in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027655507 = score(doc=77,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08150501 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
0.029993426 = product of:
0.059986852 = sum of:
0.020127738 = weight(_text_:m in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020127738 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.21994986 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
0.039859116 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039859116 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1287768 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = 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(2/4)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Die Webometrie ist ein Teilbereich der Informationswissenschaft der zur Zeit auf die Analyse von Linkstrukturen konzentriert ist. Er ist stark von der Zitationsanalyse geprägt, wie der empirische Schwerpunkt auf der Wissenschaftsanalyse zeigt. In diesem Beitrag diskutieren wir die Nutzung linkbasierter Maße in einem breiten informetrischen Kontext und bewerten verschiedene Verfahren, auch im Hinblick auf ihr generelles Potentialfür die Sozialwissenschaften. Dabei wird auch ein allgemeiner Rahmenfür Linkanalysen mit den erforderlichen Arbeitsschritten vorgestellt. Abschließend werden vielversprechende zukünftige Anwendungsfelder der Webometrie benannt, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Analyse von Blogs.
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.401-406
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.00
0.004781065 = product of:
0.023905326 = sum of:
0.023905326 = product of:
0.04781065 = sum of:
0.012579837 = weight(_text_:m in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012579837 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
0.035230815 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035230815 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1287768 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = 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(2/4)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- 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.; 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
0.004670087 = product of:
0.023350433 = sum of:
0.023350433 = product of:
0.046700865 = sum of:
0.021788916 = weight(_text_:m in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021788916 = score(doc=995,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = 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)
0.024911948 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024911948 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1287768 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = 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(2/4)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011)
0.00
0.004499014 = product of:
0.02249507 = sum of:
0.02249507 = product of:
0.04499014 = sum of:
0.015095805 = weight(_text_:m in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015095805 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.1649624 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
0.029894335 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029894335 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1287768 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = 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(2/4)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- 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
0.004499014 = product of:
0.02249507 = sum of:
0.02249507 = product of:
0.04499014 = sum of:
0.015095805 = weight(_text_:m in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015095805 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.1649624 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
0.029894335 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029894335 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1287768 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = 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(2/4)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.00
0.004499014 = product of:
0.02249507 = sum of:
0.02249507 = product of:
0.04499014 = sum of:
0.015095805 = weight(_text_:m in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015095805 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.1649624 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
0.029894335 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029894335 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1287768 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = 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(2/4)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.00
0.004499014 = product of:
0.02249507 = sum of:
0.02249507 = product of:
0.04499014 = sum of:
0.015095805 = weight(_text_:m in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015095805 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.1649624 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
0.029894335 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029894335 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1287768 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = 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(2/4)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.00
0.0037491785 = product of:
0.018745892 = sum of:
0.018745892 = product of:
0.037491783 = sum of:
0.012579837 = weight(_text_:m in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012579837 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
0.024911948 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024911948 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1287768 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = 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(2/4)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- 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
0.0037491785 = product of:
0.018745892 = sum of:
0.018745892 = product of:
0.037491783 = sum of:
0.012579837 = weight(_text_:m in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012579837 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
0.024911948 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024911948 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1287768 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = 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(2/4)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- 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
0.0037491785 = product of:
0.018745892 = sum of:
0.018745892 = product of:
0.037491783 = sum of:
0.012579837 = weight(_text_:m in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012579837 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
0.024911948 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024911948 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1287768 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = 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(2/4)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- 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
0.0037491785 = product of:
0.018745892 = sum of:
0.018745892 = product of:
0.037491783 = sum of:
0.012579837 = weight(_text_:m in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012579837 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
0.024911948 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024911948 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1287768 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = 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(2/4)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- 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
0.0037491785 = product of:
0.018745892 = sum of:
0.018745892 = product of:
0.037491783 = sum of:
0.012579837 = weight(_text_:m in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012579837 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
0.024911948 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024911948 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1287768 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = 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(2/4)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- 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
0.0037491785 = product of:
0.018745892 = sum of:
0.018745892 = product of:
0.037491783 = sum of:
0.012579837 = weight(_text_:m in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012579837 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
0.024911948 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024911948 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1287768 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = 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(2/4)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Harries, G.; Wilkinson, D.; Price, L.; Fairclough, R.; Thelwall, M.: Hyperlinks as a data source for science mapping : making sense of it all (2005)
0.00
0.0015095805 = product of:
0.0075479024 = sum of:
0.0075479024 = product of:
0.03019161 = sum of:
0.03019161 = weight(_text_:m in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03019161 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = queryNorm
0.3299248 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Do altmetric scores reflect article quality? : evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 (2023)
0.00
0.0010894458 = product of:
0.005447229 = sum of:
0.005447229 = product of:
0.021788916 = sum of:
0.021788916 = weight(_text_:m in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021788916 = score(doc=947,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Abdoli, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: In which fields are citations indicators of research quality? (2023)
0.00
0.0010894458 = product of:
0.005447229 = sum of:
0.005447229 = product of:
0.021788916 = sum of:
0.021788916 = weight(_text_:m in 1033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021788916 = score(doc=1033,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09151058 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.036774147 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
