Search (117 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  1. Thelwall, M.; Vann, K.; Fairclough, R.: Web issue analysis : an integrated water resource management case study (2006) 0.02 
    0.018356178 = product of:
  0.050479487 = sum of:
    0.0066271294 = weight(_text_:a in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066271294 = score(doc=5906,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
    0.019311246 = weight(_text_:r in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019311246 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
    0.022457888 = weight(_text_:k in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022457888 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    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
    Type
    a
  2. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011) 0.01 
    0.014758494 = product of:
  0.040585857 = sum of:
    0.0052392064 = weight(_text_:a in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052392064 = score(doc=4345,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
    0.022457888 = weight(_text_:k in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022457888 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
    0.010805541 = product of:
      0.021611081 = sum of:
        0.021611081 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021611081 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    The microblogging site Twitter generates a constant stream of communication, some of which concerns events of general interest. An analysis of Twitter may, therefore, give insights into why particular events resonate with the population. This article reports a study of a month of English Twitter posts, assessing whether popular events are typically associated with increases in sentiment strength, as seems intuitively likely. Using the top 30 events, determined by a measure of relative increase in (general) term usage, the results give strong evidence that popular events are normally associated with increases in negative sentiment strength and some evidence that peaks of interest in events have stronger positive sentiment than the time before the peak. It seems that many positive events, such as the Oscars, are capable of generating increased negative sentiment in reaction to them. Nevertheless, the surprisingly small average change in sentiment associated with popular events (typically 1% and only 6% for Tiger Woods' confessions) is consistent with events affording posters opportunities to satisfy pre-existing personal goals more often than eliciting instinctive reactions.
    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
    Type
    a
  3. Harries, G.; Wilkinson, D.; Price, L.; Fairclough, R.; Thelwall, M.: Hyperlinks as a data source for science mapping : making sense of it all (2005) 0.01 
    0.013477108 = product of:
  0.04941606 = sum of:
    0.0066271294 = weight(_text_:a in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066271294 = score(doc=4654,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
    0.03862249 = weight(_text_:r in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03862249 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.4388824 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
    0.0041664424 = weight(_text_:s in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0041664424 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Source
    Journal of information science. 30(2005) no.5, S.436-
    Type
    a
  4. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010) 0.01 
    0.012711762 = product of:
  0.034957346 = sum of:
    0.004782719 = weight(_text_:a in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004782719 = score(doc=4200,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024550997 = score(doc=4200,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018714907 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.009004618 = product of:
      0.018009236 = sum of:
        0.018009236 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018009236 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    A huge number of informal messages are posted every day in social network sites, blogs, and discussion forums. Emotions seem to be frequently important in these texts for expressing friendship, showing social support or as part of online arguments. Algorithms to identify sentiment and sentiment strength are needed to help understand the role of emotion in this informal communication and also to identify inappropriate or anomalous affective utterances, potentially associated with threatening behavior to the self or others. Nevertheless, existing sentiment detection algorithms tend to be commercially oriented, designed to identify opinions about products rather than user behaviors. This article partly fills this gap with a new algorithm, SentiStrength, to extract sentiment strength from informal English text, using new methods to exploit the de facto grammars and spelling styles of cyberspace. Applied to MySpace comments and with a lookup table of term sentiment strengths optimized by machine learning, SentiStrength is able to predict positive emotion with 60.6% accuracy and negative emotion with 72.8% accuracy, both based upon strength scales of 1-5. The former, but not the latter, is better than baseline and a wide range of general machine learning approaches.
    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
    Type
    a
  5. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.01 
    0.012131133 = product of:
  0.033360615 = sum of:
    0.0039050733 = weight(_text_:a in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039050733 = score(doc=586,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018714907 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.009004618 = product of:
      0.018009236 = sum of:
        0.018009236 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018009236 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    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
    Type
    a
  6. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.01 
    0.0117152175 = product of:
  0.032216847 = sum of:
    0.0027613041 = weight(_text_:a in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027613041 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018714907 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.009004618 = product of:
      0.018009236 = sum of:
        0.018009236 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018009236 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.6, S.614-635
    Type
    a
  7. 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) 0.01 
    0.0117152175 = product of:
  0.032216847 = sum of:
    0.0027613041 = weight(_text_:a in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027613041 = score(doc=995,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018714907 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.009004618 = product of:
      0.018009236 = sum of:
        0.018009236 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018009236 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:11:50
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.791-810
    Type
    a
  8. Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006) 0.01 
    0.010022195 = product of:
  0.027561035 = sum of:
    0.007251961 = product of:
      0.014503922 = sum of:
        0.014503922 = weight(_text_:h in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014503922 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.21959636 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0031240587 = weight(_text_:a in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0031240587 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
    0.0027776284 = weight(_text_:s in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027776284 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
    0.014407388 = product of:
      0.028814776 = sum of:
        0.028814776 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028814776 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Date
    4.12.2006 12:12:22
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.401-406
    Type
    a
  9. Thelwall, M.; Prabowo, R.; Fairclough, R.: Are raw RSS feeds suitable for broad issue scanning? : a science concern case study (2006) 0.01 
    0.00881037 = product of:
  0.03230469 = sum of:
    0.0078101465 = weight(_text_:a in 6116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0078101465 = score(doc=6116,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.25478977 = fieldWeight in 6116, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6116)
    0.022758523 = weight(_text_:r in 6116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022758523 = score(doc=6116,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.25861394 = fieldWeight in 6116, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6116)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 6116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=6116,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 6116, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6116)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Broad issue scanning is the task of identifying important public debates arising in a given broad issue; really simple syndication (RSS) feeds are a natural information source for investigating broad issues. RSS, as originally conceived, is a method for publishing timely and concise information on the Internet, for example, about the main stories in a news site or the latest postings in a blog. RSS feeds are potentially a nonintrusive source of high-quality data about public opinion: Monitoring a large number may allow quantitative methods to extract information relevant to a given need. In this article we describe an RSS feed-based coword frequency method to identify bursts of discussion relevant to a given broad issue. A case study of public science concerns is used to demonstrate the method and assess the suitability of raw RSS feeds for broad issue scanning (i.e., without data cleansing). An attempt to identify genuine science concern debates from the corpus through investigating the top 1,000 "burst" words found only two genuine debates, however. The low success rate was mainly caused by a few pathological feeds that dominated the results and obscured any significant debates. The results point to the need to develop effective data cleansing procedures for RSS feeds, particularly if there is not a large quantity of discussion about the broad issue, and a range of potential techniques is suggested. Finally, the analysis confirmed that the time series information generated by real-time monitoring of RSS feeds could usefully illustrate the evolution of new debates relevant to a broad issue.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.12, S.1644-1654
    Type
    a
  10. Thelwall, M.: Directing students to new information types : a new role for Google in literature searches? (2005) 0.01 
    0.008342114 = product of:
  0.030587751 = sum of:
    0.006112407 = weight(_text_:a in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006112407 = score(doc=364,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
    0.02204492 = weight(_text_:u in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02204492 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.25324488 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Conducting a literature review is an important activity for postgraduates and many undergraduates. Librarians can play an important role, directing students to digital libraries, compiling online subject reSource lists, and educating about the need to evaluate the quality of online resources. In order to conduct an effective literature search in a new area, however, in some subjects it is necessary to gain basic topic knowledge, including specialist vocabularies. Google's link-based page ranking algorithm makes this search engine an ideal tool for finding specialist topic introductory material, particularly in computer science, and so librarians should be teaching this as part of a strategic literature review approach.
    Pages
    S.159-166
    Source
    Libraries and Google. Eds.: Miller, W. u. R.M. Pellen
    Type
    a
  11. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books? (2016) 0.01 
    0.008258283 = product of:
  0.030280372 = sum of:
    0.0057392623 = weight(_text_:a in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0057392623 = score(doc=2768,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=2768,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
    0.022457888 = weight(_text_:k in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022457888 = score(doc=2768,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    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
    Type
    a
  12. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? (2015) 0.01 
    0.0077998317 = product of:
  0.028599381 = sum of:
    0.0040582716 = weight(_text_:a in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040582716 = score(doc=1813,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1813, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1813)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1813)
    0.022457888 = weight(_text_:k in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022457888 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 1813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1813)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    ResearchGate is a social network site for academics to create their own profiles, list their publications, and interact with each other. Like Academia.edu, it provides a new way for scholars to disseminate their work and hence potentially changes the dynamics of informal scholarly communication. This article assesses whether ResearchGate usage and publication data broadly reflect existing academic hierarchies and whether individual countries are set to benefit or lose out from the site. The results show that rankings based on ResearchGate statistics correlate moderately well with other rankings of academic institutions, suggesting that ResearchGate use broadly reflects the traditional distribution of academic capital. Moreover, while Brazil, India, and some other countries seem to be disproportionately taking advantage of ResearchGate, academics in China, South Korea, and Russia may be missing opportunities to use ResearchGate to maximize the academic impact of their publications.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.5, S.876-889
    Type
    a
  13. Orduna-Malea, E.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Web citations in patents : evidence of technological impact? (2017) 0.01 
    0.0075967293 = product of:
  0.027854674 = sum of:
    0.0033135647 = weight(_text_:a in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033135647 = score(doc=3764,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
    0.022457888 = weight(_text_:k in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022457888 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.1967-1974
    Type
    a
  14. Thelwall, M.; Prabowo, R.: Identifying and characterizing public science-related fears from RSS feeds (2007) 0.01 
    0.007400108 = product of:
  0.02713373 = sum of:
    0.0057392623 = weight(_text_:a in 137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0057392623 = score(doc=137,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 137, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=137)
    0.019311246 = weight(_text_:r in 137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019311246 = score(doc=137,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 137, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=137)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=137,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 137, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=137)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    A feature of modern democracies is public mistrust of scientists and the politicization of science policy, e.g., concerning stem cell research and genetically modified food. While the extent of this mistrust is debatable, its political influence is tangible. Hence, science policy researchers and science policy makers need early warning of issues that resonate with a wide public so that they can make timely and informed decisions. In this article, a semi-automatic method for identifying significant public science-related concerns from a corpus of Internet-based RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds is described and shown to be an improvement on a previous similar system because of the introduction of feedbased aggregation. In addition, both the RSS corpus and the concept of public science-related fears are deconstructed, revealing hidden complexity. This article also provides evidence that genetically modified organisms and stem cell research were the two major policyrelevant science concern issues, although mobile phone radiation and software security also generated significant interest.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.3, S.379-390
    Type
    a
  15. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.: Topic-based sentiment analysis for the social web : the role of mood and issue-related words (2013) 0.01 
    0.007332042 = product of:
  0.026884153 = sum of:
    0.0023430442 = weight(_text_:a in 1004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0023430442 = score(doc=1004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 1004, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1004)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 1004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=1004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1004, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1004)
    0.022457888 = weight(_text_:k in 1004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022457888 = score(doc=1004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 1004, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1004)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.8, S.1608-1617
    Type
    a
  16. Thelwall, M.: Assessing web search engines : a webometric approach (2011) 0.01 
    0.0072867624 = product of:
  0.026718128 = sum of:
    0.0057392623 = weight(_text_:a in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0057392623 = score(doc=10,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=10,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
    0.018895645 = weight(_text_:u in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018895645 = score(doc=10,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Information Retrieval (IR) research typically evaluates search systems in terms of the standard precision, recall and F-measures to weight the relative importance of precision and recall (e.g. van Rijsbergen, 1979). All of these assess the extent to which the system returns good matches for a query. In contrast, webometric measures are designed specifically for web search engines and are designed to monitor changes in results over time and various aspects of the internal logic of the way in which search engine select the results to be returned. This chapter introduces a range of webometric measurements and illustrates them with case studies of Google, Bing and Yahoo! This is a very fertile area for simple and complex new investigations into search engine results.
    Pages
    S.135-145
    Source
    Innovations in information retrieval: perspectives for theory and practice. Eds.: A. Foster, u. P. Rafferty
    Type
    a
  17. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: SlideShare presentations, citations, users, and trends : a professional site with academic and educational uses (2017) 0.01 
    0.0072614695 = product of:
  0.026625387 = sum of:
    0.0061744633 = weight(_text_:a in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061744633 = score(doc=3766,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=3766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
    0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018714907 = score(doc=3766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    SlideShare is a free social website that aims to help users distribute and find presentations. Owned by LinkedIn since 2012, it targets a professional audience but may give value to scholarship through creating a long-term record of the content of talks. This article tests this hypothesis by analyzing sets of general and scholarly related SlideShare documents using content and citation analysis and popularity statistics reported on the site. The results suggest that academics, students, and teachers are a minority of SlideShare uploaders, especially since 2010, with most documents not being directly related to scholarship or teaching. About two thirds of uploaded SlideShare documents are presentation slides, with the remainder often being files associated with presentations or video recordings of talks. SlideShare is therefore a presentation-centered site with a predominantly professional user base. Although a minority of the uploaded SlideShare documents are cited by, or cite, academic publications, probably too few articles are cited by SlideShare to consider extracting SlideShare citations for research evaluation. Nevertheless, scholars should consider SlideShare to be a potential source of academic and nonacademic information, particularly in library and information science, education, and business.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.1989-2003
    Type
    a
  18. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Goodreads : a social network site for book readers (2017) 0.01 
    0.0070836907 = product of:
  0.025973532 = sum of:
    0.0055226083 = weight(_text_:a in 3534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0055226083 = score(doc=3534,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3534, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3534)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 3534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=3534,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3534, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3534)
    0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 3534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018714907 = score(doc=3534,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 3534, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3534)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Goodreads is an Amazon-owned book-based social web site for members to share books, read, review books, rate books, and connect with other readers. Goodreads has tens of millions of book reviews, recommendations, and ratings that may help librarians and readers to select relevant books. This article describes a first investigation of the properties of Goodreads users, using a random sample of 50,000 members. The results suggest that about three quarters of members with a public profile are female, and that there is little difference between male and female users in patterns of behavior, except for females registering more books and rating them less positively. Goodreads librarians and super-users engage extensively with most features of the site. The absence of strong correlations between book-based and social usage statistics (e.g., numbers of friends, followers, books, reviews, and ratings) suggests that members choose their own individual balance of social and book activities and rarely ignore one at the expense of the other. Goodreads is therefore neither primarily a book-based website nor primarily a social network site but is a genuine hybrid, social navigation site.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.4, S.972-983
    Type
    a
  19. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations : a multi-discipline exploratory analysis (2007) 0.01 
    0.006986414 = product of:
  0.02561685 = sum of:
    0.0051659266 = weight(_text_:a in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051659266 = score(doc=337,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
    0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018714907 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    We use a new data gathering method, "Web/URL citation," Web/URL and Google Scholar to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, and education) based upon a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 open access (OA) journals published in 2001. A Web/URL citation of an online journal article is a Web mention of its title, URL, or both. For each discipline, except psychology, we found significant correlations between Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI, here: ISI) citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations. Google Scholar citations correlated more highly with ISI citations than did Google Web/URL citations, indicating that the Web/URL method measures a broader type of citation phenomenon. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines, suggesting that Google Scholar is more comprehensive for social sciences and perhaps also when conference articles are valued and published online. We also found large disciplinary differences in the percentage overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citation sources. Finally, although we found many significant trends, there were also numerous exceptions, suggesting that replacing traditional citation sources with the Web or Google Scholar for research impact calculations would be problematic.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.7, S.1055-1065
    Type
    a
  20. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Academia.edu : Social network or Academic Network? (2014) 0.01 
    0.006986414 = product of:
  0.02561685 = sum of:
    0.0051659266 = weight(_text_:a in 1234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051659266 = score(doc=1234,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1234, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1234)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 1234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=1234,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1234, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1234)
    0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 1234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018714907 = score(doc=1234,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 1234, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1234)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Academic social network sites Academia.edu and ResearchGate, and reference sharing sites Mendeley, Bibsonomy, Zotero, and CiteULike, give scholars the ability to publicize their research outputs and connect with each other. With millions of users, these are a significant addition to the scholarly communication and academic information-seeking eco-structure. There is thus a need to understand the role that they play and the changes, if any, that they can make to the dynamics of academic careers. This article investigates attributes of philosophy scholars on Academia.edu, introducing a median-based, time-normalizing method to adjust for time delays in joining the site. In comparison to students, faculty tend to attract more profile views but female philosophers did not attract more profile views than did males, suggesting that academic capital drives philosophy uses of the site more than does friendship and networking. Secondary analyses of law, history, and computer science confirmed the faculty advantage (in terms of higher profile views) except for females in law and females in computer science. There was also a female advantage for both faculty and students in law and computer science as well as for history students. Hence, Academia.edu overall seems to reflect a hybrid of scholarly norms (the faculty advantage) and a female advantage that is suggestive of general social networking norms. Finally, traditional bibliometric measures did not correlate with any Academia.edu metrics for philosophers, perhaps because more senior academics use the site less extensively or because of the range informal scholarly activities that cannot be measured by bibliometric methods.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.721-731
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 116
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 116
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications