Search (115 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  1. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009) 0.06 
    0.06269097 = product of:
  0.104484946 = sum of:
    0.013321568 = weight(_text_:on in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013321568 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.018976528 = weight(_text_:information in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018976528 = score(doc=2734,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.07218685 = sum of:
      0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024428863 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.047757987 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047757987 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.434-442
  2. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.06 
    0.058947373 = product of:
  0.09824562 = sum of:
    0.023073634 = weight(_text_:on in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023073634 = score(doc=586,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.016973123 = weight(_text_:information in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016973123 = score(doc=586,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.05819886 = sum of:
      0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024428863 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03377 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.11, S.1631-1644
  3. Thelwall, M.; Wouters, P.; Fry, J.: Information-centered research for large-scale analyses of new information sources (2008) 0.04 
    0.037390526 = product of:
  0.062317543 = sum of:
    0.018650195 = weight(_text_:on in 1969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018650195 = score(doc=1969,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 1969, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1969)
    0.02656714 = weight(_text_:information in 1969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02656714 = score(doc=1969,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.3035872 = fieldWeight in 1969, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1969)
    0.017100206 = product of:
      0.03420041 = sum of:
        0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 1969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03420041 = score(doc=1969,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 1969, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1969)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    New mass publishing genres, such as blogs and personal home pages provide a rich source of social data that is yet to be fully exploited by the social sciences and humanities. Information-centered research (ICR) not only provides a genuinely new and useful information science research model for this type of data, but can also contribute to the emerging e-research infrastructure. Nevertheless, ICR should not be conducted on a purely abstract level, but should relate to potentially relevant problems.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1523-1527
  4. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.03 
    0.03369632 = product of:
  0.0842408 = sum of:
    0.0144021725 = weight(_text_:information in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0144021725 = score(doc=2856,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
    0.06983863 = sum of:
      0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029314637 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
      0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040523995 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article introduces a new source of evidence of the value of medical-related research: citations from clinical guidelines. These give evidence that research findings have been used to inform the day-to-day practice of medical staff. To identify whether citations from guidelines can give different information from that of traditional citation counts, this article assesses the extent to which references in clinical guidelines tend to be highly cited in the academic literature and highly read in Mendeley. Using evidence from the United Kingdom, references associated with the UK's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines tended to be substantially more cited than comparable articles, unless they had been published in the most recent 3 years. Citation counts also seemed to be stronger indicators than Mendeley readership altmetrics. Hence, although presence in guidelines may be particularly useful to highlight the contributions of recently published articles, for older articles citation counts may already be sufficient to recognize their contributions to health in society.
    Date
    19. 3.2016 12:22:00
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.960-966
  5. Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.: Scholars on soap boxes : science communication and dissemination in TED videos (2013) 0.03 
    0.03359344 = product of:
  0.05598906 = sum of:
    0.023073634 = weight(_text_:on in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023073634 = score(doc=678,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
    0.0084865615 = weight(_text_:information in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0084865615 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
    0.024428863 = product of:
      0.048857726 = sum of:
        0.048857726 = weight(_text_:technology in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048857726 = score(doc=678,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.32906836 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Online videos provide a novel, and often interactive, platform for the popularization of science. One successful collection is hosted on the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) website. This study uses a range of bibliometric (citation) and webometric (usage and bookmarking) indicators to examine TED videos in order to provide insights into the type and scope of their impact. The results suggest that TED Talks impact primarily the public sphere, with about three-quarters of a billion total views, rather than the academic realm. Differences were found among broad disciplinary areas, with art and design videos having generally lower levels of impact but science and technology videos generating otherwise average impact for TED. Many of the metrics were only loosely related, but there was a general consensus about the most popular videos as measured through views or comments on YouTube and the TED site. Moreover, most videos were found in at least one online syllabus and videos in online syllabi tended to be more viewed, discussed, and blogged. Less-liked videos generated more discussion, although this may be because they are more controversial. Science and technology videos presented by academics were more liked than those by nonacademics, showing that academics are not disadvantaged in this new media environment.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.663-674
  6. Haustein, S.; Peters, I.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.; Larivière, V.: Tweeting biomedicine : an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature (2014) 0.03 
    0.032402508 = product of:
  0.054004177 = sum of:
    0.029787935 = weight(_text_:on in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029787935 = score(doc=1229,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.271686 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
    0.012001811 = weight(_text_:information in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012001811 = score(doc=1229,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
    0.012214432 = product of:
      0.024428863 = sum of:
        0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024428863 = score(doc=1229,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Data collected by social media platforms have been introduced as new sources for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation analysis. Data generated from social media activities can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This article aims to provide systematic evidence about how often Twitter is used to disseminate information about journal articles in the biomedical sciences. The analysis is based on 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science and published between 2010 and 2012. The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed and compared to citations to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter and how far tweets correlate with citation impact. With less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general but differs between journals and specialties. Correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework using the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media-based metrics.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.656-669
  7. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010) 0.03 
    0.03212778 = product of:
  0.08031944 = sum of:
    0.012001811 = weight(_text_:information in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012001811 = score(doc=4200,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.06831763 = sum of:
      0.03454763 = weight(_text_:technology in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03454763 = score(doc=4200,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
      0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03377 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:29:23
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch das Erratum in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.419
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2544-2558
  8. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011) 0.03 
    0.032009 = product of:
  0.0800225 = sum of:
    0.0101838745 = weight(_text_:information in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0101838745 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
    0.06983863 = sum of:
      0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029314637 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
      0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040523995 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:27:06
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.406-418
  9. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.03 
    0.032009 = product of:
  0.0800225 = sum of:
    0.0101838745 = weight(_text_:information in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0101838745 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
    0.06983863 = sum of:
      0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029314637 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
      0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040523995 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    16.11.2016 11:07:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3036-3050
  10. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.03 
    0.032009 = product of:
  0.0800225 = sum of:
    0.0101838745 = weight(_text_:information in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0101838745 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
    0.06983863 = sum of:
      0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029314637 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
      0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040523995 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    28. 7.2018 10:00:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.8, S.959-973
  11. Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020) 0.03 
    0.031618603 = product of:
  0.052697666 = sum of:
    0.018839544 = weight(_text_:on in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018839544 = score(doc=178,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
    0.016973123 = weight(_text_:information in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016973123 = score(doc=178,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
    0.016885 = product of:
      0.03377 = sum of:
        0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03377 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 72(2020) no.6, S.945-962
  12. Thelwall, M.; Stuart, D.: Web crawling ethics revisited : cost, privacy, and denial of service (2006) 0.03 
    0.031531766 = product of:
  0.05255294 = sum of:
    0.018650195 = weight(_text_:on in 6098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018650195 = score(doc=6098,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 6098, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6098)
    0.016802534 = weight(_text_:information in 6098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016802534 = score(doc=6098,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 6098, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6098)
    0.017100206 = product of:
      0.03420041 = sum of:
        0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 6098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03420041 = score(doc=6098,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 6098, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6098)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Ethical aspects of the employment of Web crawlers for information science research and other contexts are reviewed. The difference between legal and ethical uses of communications technologies is emphasized as well as the changing boundary between ethical and unethical conduct. A review of the potential impacts on Web site owners is used to underpin a new framework for ethical crawling, and it is argued that delicate human judgment is required for each individual case, with verdicts likely to change over time. Decisions can be based upon an approximate cost-benefit analysis, but it is crucial that crawler owners find out about the technological issues affecting the owners of the sites being crawled in order to produce an informed assessment.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.13, S.1771-1779
  13. Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? : Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals (2016) 0.03 
    0.031000165 = product of:
  0.05166694 = sum of:
    0.022607451 = weight(_text_:on in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022607451 = score(doc=2495,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
    0.0144021725 = weight(_text_:information in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0144021725 = score(doc=2495,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
    0.014657319 = product of:
      0.029314637 = sum of:
        0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029314637 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.1, S.191-199
  14. Thelwall, M.; Vann, K.; Fairclough, R.: Web issue analysis : an integrated water resource management case study (2006) 0.03 
    0.028969314 = product of:
  0.048282187 = sum of:
    0.015985882 = weight(_text_:on in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015985882 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
    0.017638987 = weight(_text_:information in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017638987 = score(doc=5906,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
    0.014657319 = product of:
      0.029314637 = sum of:
        0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029314637 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    In this article Web issue analysis is introduced as a new technique to investigate an issue as reflected on the Web. The issue chosen, integrated water resource management (IWRM), is a United Nations-initiated paradigm for managing water resources in an international context, particularly in developing nations. As with many international governmental initiatives, there is a considerable body of online information about it: 41.381 hypertext markup language (HTML) pages and 28.735 PDF documents mentioning the issue were downloaded. A page uniform resource locator (URL) and link analysis revealed the international and sectoral spread of IWRM. A noun and noun phrase occurrence analysis was used to identify the issues most commonly discussed, revealing some unexpected topics such as private sector and economic growth. Although the complexity of the methods required to produce meaningful statistics from the data is disadvantageous to easy interpretation, it was still possible to produce data that could be subject to a reasonably intuitive interpretation. Hence Web issue analysis is claimed to be a useful new technique for information science.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.10, S.1303-1314
  15. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: News stories as evidence for research? : BBC citations from articles, Books, and Wikipedia (2017) 0.03 
    0.028541105 = product of:
  0.047568507 = sum of:
    0.013321568 = weight(_text_:on in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013321568 = score(doc=3760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
    0.016973123 = weight(_text_:information in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016973123 = score(doc=3760,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
    0.017273815 = product of:
      0.03454763 = sum of:
        0.03454763 = weight(_text_:technology in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03454763 = score(doc=3760,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Although news stories target the general public and are sometimes inaccurate, they can serve as sources of real-world information for researchers. This article investigates the extent to which academics exploit journalism using content and citation analyses of online BBC News stories cited by Scopus articles. A total of 27,234 Scopus-indexed publications have cited at least one BBC News story, with a steady annual increase. Citations from the arts and humanities (2.8% of publications in 2015) and social sciences (1.5%) were more likely than citations from medicine (0.1%) and science (<0.1%). Surprisingly, half of the sampled Scopus-cited science and technology (53%) and medicine and health (47%) stories were based on academic research, rather than otherwise unpublished information, suggesting that researchers have chosen a lower-quality secondary source for their citations. Nevertheless, the BBC News stories that were most frequently cited by Scopus, Google Books, and Wikipedia introduced new information from many different topics, including politics, business, economics, statistics, and reports about events. Thus, news stories are mediating real-world knowledge into the academic domain, a potential cause for concern.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.2017-2028
  16. Thelwall, M.; Price, L.: Language evolution and the spread of ideas on the Web : a procedure for identifying emergent hybrid word (2006) 0.03 
    0.028469186 = product of:
  0.047448643 = sum of:
    0.022607451 = weight(_text_:on in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022607451 = score(doc=5896,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
    0.0101838745 = weight(_text_:information in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0101838745 = score(doc=5896,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
    0.014657319 = product of:
      0.029314637 = sum of:
        0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029314637 = score(doc=5896,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Word usage is of interest to linguists for its own sake as well as to social scientists and others who seek to track the spread of ideas, for example, in public debates over political decisions. The historical evolution of language can be analyzed with the tools of corpus linguistics through evolving corpora and the Web. But word usage statistics can only be gathered for known words. In this article, techniques are described and tested for identifying new words from the Web, focusing on the case when the words are related to a topic and have a hybrid form with a common sequence of letters. The results highlight the need to employ a combination of search techniques and show the wide potential of hybrid word family investigations in linguistics and social science.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.10, S.1326-1337
  17. Thelwall, M.: Homophily in MySpace (2009) 0.03 
    0.028469186 = product of:
  0.047448643 = sum of:
    0.022607451 = weight(_text_:on in 2706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022607451 = score(doc=2706,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2706, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2706)
    0.0101838745 = weight(_text_:information in 2706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0101838745 = score(doc=2706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2706)
    0.014657319 = product of:
      0.029314637 = sum of:
        0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 2706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029314637 = score(doc=2706,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2706, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2706)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Social network sites like MySpace are increasingly important environments for expressing and maintaining interpersonal connections, but does online communication exacerbate or ameliorate the known tendency for offline friendships to form between similar people (homophily)? This article reports an exploratory study of the similarity between the reported attributes of pairs of active MySpace Friends based upon a systematic sample of 2,567 members joining on June 18, 2007 and Friends who commented on their profile. The results showed no evidence of gender homophily but significant evidence of homophily for ethnicity, religion, age, country, marital status, attitude towards children, sexual orientation, and reason for joining MySpace. There were also some imbalances: women and the young were disproportionately commenters, and commenters tended to have more Friends than commentees. Overall, it seems that although traditional sources of homophily are thriving in MySpace networks of active public connections, gender homophily has completely disappeared. Finally, the method used has wide potential for investigating and partially tracking homophily in society, providing early warning of socially divisive trends.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.2, S.219-231
  18. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology (2013) 0.03 
    0.028469186 = product of:
  0.047448643 = sum of:
    0.022607451 = weight(_text_:on in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022607451 = score(doc=737,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
    0.0101838745 = weight(_text_:information in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0101838745 = score(doc=737,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
    0.014657319 = product of:
      0.029314637 = sum of:
        0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029314637 = score(doc=737,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    This study investigates a range of metrics available when a nanoscience and nanotechnology article is published to see which metrics correlate more with the number of citations to the article. It also introduces the degree of internationality of journals and references as new metrics for this purpose. The journal impact factor; the impact of references; the internationality of authors, journals, and references; and the number of authors, institutions, and references were all calculated for papers published in nanoscience and nanotechnology journals in the Web of Science from 2007 to 2009. Using a zero-inflated negative binomial regression model on the data set, the impact factor of the publishing journal and the citation impact of the cited references were found to be the most effective determinants of citation counts in all four time periods. In the entire 2007 to 2009 period, apart from journal internationality and author numbers and internationality, all other predictor variables had significant effects on citation counts.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.1055-1064
  19. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books? (2016) 0.03 
    0.028469186 = product of:
  0.047448643 = sum of:
    0.022607451 = weight(_text_:on in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022607451 = score(doc=2768,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
    0.0101838745 = weight(_text_:information in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0101838745 = score(doc=2768,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
    0.014657319 = product of:
      0.029314637 = sum of:
        0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029314637 = score(doc=2768,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Although citation counts are often used to evaluate the research impact of academic publications, they are problematic for books that aim for educational or cultural impact. To fill this gap, this article assesses whether a number of simple metrics derived from Amazon.com reviews of academic books could provide evidence of their impact. Based on a set of 2,739 academic monographs from 2008 and a set of 1,305 best-selling books in 15 Amazon.com academic subject categories, the existence of significant but low or moderate correlations between citations and numbers of reviews, combined with other evidence, suggests that online book reviews tend to reflect the wider popularity of a book rather than its academic impact, although there are substantial disciplinary differences. Metrics based on online reviews are therefore recommended for the evaluation of books that aim at a wide audience inside or outside academia when it is important to capture the broader impacts of educational or cultural activities and when they cannot be manipulated in advance of the evaluation.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.566-581
  20. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Vis, F.: Commenting on YouTube videos : From guatemalan rock to El Big Bang (2012) 0.03 
    0.028406477 = product of:
  0.047344126 = sum of:
    0.026643137 = weight(_text_:on in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026643137 = score(doc=63,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
    0.0084865615 = weight(_text_:information in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0084865615 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
    0.012214432 = product of:
      0.024428863 = sum of:
        0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024428863 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    YouTube is one of the world's most popular websites and hosts numerous amateur and professional videos. Comments on these videos might be researched to give insights into audience reactions to important issues or particular videos. Yet, little is known about YouTube discussions in general: how frequent they are, who typically participates, and the role of sentiment. This article fills this gap through an analysis of large samples of text comments on YouTube videos. The results identify patterns and give some benchmarks against which future YouTube research into individual videos can be compared. For instance, the typical YouTube comment was mildly positive, was posted by a 29-year-old male, and contained 58 characters. About 23% of comments in the complete comment sets were replies to previous comments. There was no typical density of discussion on YouTube videos in the sense of the proportion of replies to other comments: videos with both few and many replies were common. The YouTube audience engaged with each other disproportionately when making negative comments, however; positive comments elicited few replies. The biggest trigger of discussion seemed to be religion, whereas the videos attracting the least discussion were predominantly from the Music, Comedy, and How to & Style categories. This suggests different audience uses for YouTube, from passive entertainment to active debating.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.3, S.616-629

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 114
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 114
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications