-
Thelwall, M.: Directing students to new information types : a new role for Google in literature searches? (2005)
0.19
0.19329357 = product of:
0.28994036 = sum of:
0.23654105 = weight(_text_:specialist in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.23654105 = score(doc=364,freq=4.0), product of:
0.32440975 = queryWeight, product of:
6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.72914284 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
0.053399306 = product of:
0.10679861 = sum of:
0.10679861 = weight(_text_:librarians in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10679861 = score(doc=364,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.48993918 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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.
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Goodreads : a social network site for book readers (2017)
0.01
0.0127141215 = product of:
0.038142364 = sum of:
0.038142364 = product of:
0.07628473 = sum of:
0.07628473 = weight(_text_:librarians in 3534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07628473 = score(doc=3534,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.34995657 = fieldWeight in 3534, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3534)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
-
Thelwall, M.: Book genre and author gender : romance > paranormal-romance to autobiography > memoir (2017)
0.01
0.01078829 = product of:
0.032364868 = sum of:
0.032364868 = product of:
0.064729735 = sum of:
0.064729735 = weight(_text_:librarians in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.064729735 = score(doc=3598,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.296948 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Although gender differences are known to exist in the publishing industry and in reader preferences, there is little public systematic data about them. This article uses evidence from the book-based social website Goodreads to provide a large scale analysis of 50 major English book genres based on author genders. The results show gender differences in authorship in almost all categories and gender differences the level of interest in, and ratings of, books in a minority of categories. Perhaps surprisingly in this context, there is not a clear gender-based relationship between the success of an author and their prevalence within a genre. The unexpected almost universal authorship gender differences should give new impetus to investigations of the importance of gender in fiction and the success of minority genders in some genres should encourage publishers and librarians to take their work seriously, except perhaps for most male-authored chick-lit.
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
0.008790895 = product of:
0.026372686 = sum of:
0.026372686 = product of:
0.052745372 = sum of:
0.052745372 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052745372 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.01
0.0077701267 = product of:
0.02331038 = sum of:
0.02331038 = product of:
0.04662076 = sum of:
0.04662076 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04662076 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
0.0065931715 = product of:
0.019779515 = sum of:
0.019779515 = product of:
0.03955903 = sum of:
0.03955903 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03955903 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
0.0065931715 = product of:
0.019779515 = sum of:
0.019779515 = product of:
0.03955903 = sum of:
0.03955903 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03955903 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.01
0.0065931715 = product of:
0.019779515 = sum of:
0.019779515 = product of:
0.03955903 = sum of:
0.03955903 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03955903 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.01
0.0065931715 = product of:
0.019779515 = sum of:
0.019779515 = product of:
0.03955903 = sum of:
0.03955903 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03955903 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
0.0054943096 = product of:
0.016482929 = sum of:
0.016482929 = product of:
0.032965858 = sum of:
0.032965858 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032965858 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
0.0054943096 = product of:
0.016482929 = sum of:
0.016482929 = product of:
0.032965858 = sum of:
0.032965858 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032965858 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
0.0054943096 = product of:
0.016482929 = sum of:
0.016482929 = product of:
0.032965858 = sum of:
0.032965858 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032965858 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
0.0054943096 = product of:
0.016482929 = sum of:
0.016482929 = product of:
0.032965858 = sum of:
0.032965858 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032965858 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
0.0054943096 = product of:
0.016482929 = sum of:
0.016482929 = product of:
0.032965858 = sum of:
0.032965858 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032965858 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
0.0054943096 = product of:
0.016482929 = sum of:
0.016482929 = product of:
0.032965858 = sum of:
0.032965858 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032965858 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
0.0054943096 = product of:
0.016482929 = sum of:
0.016482929 = product of:
0.032965858 = sum of:
0.032965858 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032965858 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
