-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.05
0.05499648 = product of:
0.10999296 = sum of:
0.10999296 = sum of:
0.079674184 = weight(_text_:2007 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.079674184 = score(doc=586,freq=5.0), product of:
0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
0.044755515 = queryNorm
0.39432842 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
5.0 = termFreq=5.0
4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030318772 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044755515 = 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)
- 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
- Year
- 2007
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology (2013)
0.02
0.021378826 = product of:
0.042757653 = sum of:
0.042757653 = product of:
0.085515305 = sum of:
0.085515305 = weight(_text_:2007 in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.085515305 = score(doc=737,freq=4.0), product of:
0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
0.044755515 = queryNorm
0.42323765 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations : a multi-discipline exploratory analysis (2007)
0.02
0.019918546 = product of:
0.039837092 = sum of:
0.039837092 = product of:
0.079674184 = sum of:
0.079674184 = weight(_text_:2007 in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.079674184 = score(doc=337,freq=5.0), product of:
0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
0.044755515 = queryNorm
0.39432842 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
5.0 = termFreq=5.0
4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.7, S.1055-1065
- Year
- 2007
-
Barjak, F.; Li, X.; Thelwall, M.: Which factors explain the Web impact of scientists' personal homepages? (2007)
0.02
0.015934838 = product of:
0.031869676 = sum of:
0.031869676 = product of:
0.06373935 = sum of:
0.06373935 = weight(_text_:2007 in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06373935 = score(doc=73,freq=5.0), product of:
0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
0.044755515 = queryNorm
0.31546274 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
5.0 = termFreq=5.0
4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.2, S.200-211
- Year
- 2007
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
0.012127508 = product of:
0.024255017 = sum of:
0.024255017 = product of:
0.048510034 = sum of:
0.048510034 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048510034 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044755515 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.01
0.010719304 = product of:
0.021438608 = sum of:
0.021438608 = product of:
0.042877216 = sum of:
0.042877216 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042877216 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044755515 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 12:43:51
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.01
0.009095631 = product of:
0.018191261 = sum of:
0.018191261 = product of:
0.036382522 = sum of:
0.036382522 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036382522 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044755515 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.01
0.009095631 = product of:
0.018191261 = sum of:
0.018191261 = product of:
0.036382522 = sum of:
0.036382522 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036382522 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044755515 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.01
0.009095631 = product of:
0.018191261 = sum of:
0.018191261 = product of:
0.036382522 = sum of:
0.036382522 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036382522 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044755515 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.01
0.007579693 = product of:
0.015159386 = sum of:
0.015159386 = product of:
0.030318772 = sum of:
0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030318772 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044755515 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 6. 4.2012 18:16:22
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.01
0.007579693 = product of:
0.015159386 = sum of:
0.015159386 = product of:
0.030318772 = sum of:
0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030318772 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044755515 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.01
0.007579693 = product of:
0.015159386 = sum of:
0.015159386 = product of:
0.030318772 = sum of:
0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030318772 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044755515 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Why are coauthored academic articles more cited : higher quality or larger audience? (2023)
0.01
0.007579693 = product of:
0.015159386 = sum of:
0.015159386 = product of:
0.030318772 = sum of:
0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030318772 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044755515 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
