Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01166026 = product of:
  0.02332052 = sum of:
    0.02332052 = product of:
      0.04664104 = sum of:
        0.04664104 = weight(_text_:2003 in 2383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04664104 = score(doc=2383,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.2397517 = fieldWeight in 2383, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2383)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The impact of published academic research in the sciences and social sciences, when measured, is commonly estimated by counting citations from journal articles. The Web has now introduced new potential sources of quantitative data online that could be used to measure aspects of research impact. In this article we assess the extent to which citations from online syllabuses could be a valuable source of evidence about the educational utility of research. An analysis of online syllabus citations to 70,700 articles published in 2003 in the journals of 12 subjects indicates that online syllabus citations were sufficiently numerous to be a useful impact indictor in some social sciences, including political science and information and library science, but not in others, nor in any sciences. This result was consistent with current social science research having, in general, more educational value than current science research. Moreover, articles frequently cited in online syllabuses were not necessarily highly cited by other articles. Hence it seems that online syllabus citations provide a valuable additional source of evidence about the impact of journals, scholars, and research articles in some social sciences.

0.01166026 = product of:
  0.02332052 = sum of:
    0.02332052 = product of:
      0.04664104 = sum of:
        0.04664104 = weight(_text_:2003 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04664104 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.2397517 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%-5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.

0.01166026 = product of:
  0.02332052 = sum of:
    0.02332052 = product of:
      0.04664104 = sum of:
        0.04664104 = weight(_text_:2003 in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04664104 = score(doc=3766,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.2397517 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.1989-2003

0.007591454 = product of:
  0.015182908 = sum of:
    0.015182908 = product of:
      0.030365815 = sum of:
        0.030365815 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030365815 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = 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.

0.007591454 = product of:
  0.015182908 = sum of:
    0.015182908 = product of:
      0.030365815 = sum of:
        0.030365815 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030365815 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = 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

0.007591454 = product of:
  0.015182908 = sum of:
    0.015182908 = product of:
      0.030365815 = sum of:
        0.030365815 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030365815 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = 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