-
Thelwall, M.; Vaughan, L.; Björneborn, L.: Webometrics (2004)
0.01
0.014227318 = product of:
0.028454635 = sum of:
0.028454635 = product of:
0.05690927 = sum of:
0.05690927 = weight(_text_:1997 in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05690927 = score(doc=4279,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = queryNorm
0.3475454 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
0.012215767 = product of:
0.024431534 = sum of:
0.024431534 = product of:
0.04886307 = sum of:
0.04886307 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04886307 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = 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
0.010797314 = product of:
0.021594629 = sum of:
0.021594629 = product of:
0.043189257 = sum of:
0.043189257 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043189257 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = 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.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011)
0.01
0.009161824 = product of:
0.018323649 = sum of:
0.018323649 = product of:
0.036647297 = sum of:
0.036647297 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036647297 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:27:06
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.01
0.009161824 = product of:
0.018323649 = sum of:
0.018323649 = product of:
0.036647297 = sum of:
0.036647297 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036647297 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = 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
0.009161824 = product of:
0.018323649 = sum of:
0.018323649 = product of:
0.036647297 = sum of:
0.036647297 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036647297 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = 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
0.009161824 = product of:
0.018323649 = sum of:
0.018323649 = product of:
0.036647297 = sum of:
0.036647297 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036647297 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = 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
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.01
0.0076348544 = product of:
0.015269709 = sum of:
0.015269709 = product of:
0.030539418 = sum of:
0.030539418 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030539418 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = 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)
0.5 = 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.
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.01
0.0076348544 = product of:
0.015269709 = sum of:
0.015269709 = product of:
0.030539418 = sum of:
0.030539418 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030539418 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:29:23
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.01
0.0076348544 = product of:
0.015269709 = sum of:
0.015269709 = product of:
0.030539418 = sum of:
0.030539418 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030539418 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = 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
-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.01
0.0076348544 = product of:
0.015269709 = sum of:
0.015269709 = product of:
0.030539418 = sum of:
0.030539418 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030539418 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.01
0.0076348544 = product of:
0.015269709 = sum of:
0.015269709 = product of:
0.030539418 = sum of:
0.030539418 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030539418 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = 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
0.0076348544 = product of:
0.015269709 = sum of:
0.015269709 = product of:
0.030539418 = sum of:
0.030539418 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030539418 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = 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
0.0076348544 = product of:
0.015269709 = sum of:
0.015269709 = product of:
0.030539418 = sum of:
0.030539418 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030539418 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = 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
