Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.122440256 = product of:
  0.24488051 = sum of:
    0.046233665 = weight(_text_:communication in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046233665 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.23853138 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
    0.19864684 = sum of:
      0.16823748 = weight(_text_:blogs in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16823748 = score(doc=2598,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.31091204 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04488925 = queryNorm
          0.54110956 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.030409368 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030409368 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04488925 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the disciplinary orientation of scientific publications that were mentioned on different social media platforms, focussing on their differences and similarities with citation counts. Design/methodology/approach - Social media metrics and readership counts, associated with 500,216 publications and their citation data from the Web of Science database, were collected from Altmetric.com and Mendeley. Results are presented through descriptive statistical analyses together with science maps generated with VOSviewer. Findings - The results confirm Mendeley as the most prevalent social media source with similar characteristics to citations in their distribution across fields and their density in average values per publication. The humanities, natural sciences, and engineering disciplines have a much lower presence of social media metrics. Twitter has a stronger focus on general medicine and social sciences. Other sources (blog, Facebook, Google+, and news media mentions) are more prominent in regards to multidisciplinary journals. Originality/value - This paper reinforces the relevance of Mendeley as a social media source for analytical purposes from a disciplinary perspective, being particularly relevant for the social sciences (together with Twitter). Key implications for the use of social media metrics on the evaluation of research performance (e.g. the concentration of some social media metrics, such as blogs, news items, etc., around multidisciplinary journals) are identified.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Footnote

Teil eines Special Issue: Social Media Metrics in Scholarly Communication: exploring tweets, blogs, likes and other altmetrics.

0.048353374 = product of:
  0.09670675 = sum of:
    0.07846113 = weight(_text_:communication in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07846113 = score(doc=2757,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.4048012 = fieldWeight in 2757, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2757)
    0.018245619 = product of:
      0.036491238 = sum of:
        0.036491238 = weight(_text_:22 in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036491238 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2757, 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=2757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article focuses on the process of scientific and scholarly communication. Data on open access publications on the Internet not only provides a supplement to the traditional citation indexes but also enables analysis of the microprocesses and daily practices that constitute scientific communication. This article focuses on a stage in the life cycle of scientific and scholarly information that precedes the publication of formal research articles in the scientific and scholarly literature. Binomial logistic regression models are used to analyse precise mechanisms at work in the transformation of a working paper (WP) into a journal article (JA) in the field of economics. The study unveils a fine-grained process of adapting WPs to their new context as JAs by deleting and adding literature references, which perhaps can be best captured by the term sculpting.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:59:25

0.020818327 = product of:
  0.08327331 = sum of:
    0.08327331 = product of:
      0.16654661 = sum of:
        0.16654661 = weight(_text_:blogs in 1969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16654661 = score(doc=1969,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31091204 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.5356712 = fieldWeight in 1969, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1969)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

New mass publishing genres, such as blogs and personal home pages provide a rich source of social data that is yet to be fully exploited by the social sciences and humanities. Information-centered research (ICR) not only provides a genuinely new and useful information science research model for this type of data, but can also contribute to the emerging e-research infrastructure. Nevertheless, ICR should not be conducted on a purely abstract level, but should relate to potentially relevant problems.

0.018493466 = product of:
  0.073973864 = sum of:
    0.073973864 = weight(_text_:communication in 1023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073973864 = score(doc=1023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.3816502 = fieldWeight in 1023, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1023)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Since the 'Science Citation Index' emerged within the system of scientific communication in 1964, an intense controversy about its character has been raging: in what sense can citation analysis be trusted? This debate can be characterized as the confrontation of different perspectives on science. Discusses the citation representation of science: the way the citation creates a new reality of as well as in the world of science; the main features of this reality; and some implications for science and science policy

0.014870233 = product of:
  0.05948093 = sum of:
    0.05948093 = product of:
      0.11896186 = sum of:
        0.11896186 = weight(_text_:blogs in 2214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11896186 = score(doc=2214,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31091204 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.38262224 = fieldWeight in 2214, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2214)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An extensive analysis of the presence of different altmetric indicators provided by Altmetric.com across scientific fields is presented, particularly focusing on their relationship with citations. Our results confirm that the presence and density of social media altmetric counts are still very low and not very frequent among scientific publications, with 15%-24% of the publications presenting some altmetric activity and concentrated on the most recent publications, although their presence is increasing over time. Publications from the social sciences, humanities, and the medical and life sciences show the highest presence of altmetrics, indicating their potential value and interest for these fields. The analysis of the relationships between altmetrics and citations confirms previous claims of positive correlations but is relatively weak, thus supporting the idea that altmetrics do not reflect the same kind of impact as citations. Also, altmetric counts do not always present a better filtering of highly-cited publications than journal citation scores. Altmetric scores (particularly mentions in blogs) are able to identify highly-cited publications with higher levels of precision than journal citation scores (JCS), but they have a lower level of recall. The value of altmetrics as a complementary tool of citation analysis is highlighted, although more research is suggested to disentangle the potential meaning and value of altmetric indicators for research evaluation.

0.009246733 = product of:
  0.036986932 = sum of:
    0.036986932 = weight(_text_:communication in 3093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036986932 = score(doc=3093,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.1908251 = fieldWeight in 3093, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3093)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

How do authors refer to Web-based information sources in their formal scientific publications? It is not yet weIl known how scientists and scholars actually include new types of information sources, available through the new media, in their published work. This article reports an a comparative study of the lists of references in 38 scientific journals in five different scientific and social scientific fields. The fields are sociology, library and information science, biochemistry and biotechnology, neuroscience, and the mathematics of computing. As is weIl known, references, citations, and hyperlinks play different roles in academic publishing and communication. Our study focuses an hyperlinks as attributes of references in formal scholarly publications. The study developed and applied a method to analyze the differential roles of publishing media in the analysis of scientific and scholarly literature references. The present secondary databases that include reference and citation data (the Web of Science) cannot be used for this type of research. By the automated processing and analysis of the full text of scientific and scholarly articles, we were able to extract the references and hyperlinks contained in these references in relation to other features of the scientific and scholarly literature. Our findings show that hyperlinking references are indeed, as expected, abundantly present in the formal literature. They also tend to cite more recent literature than the average reference. The large majority of the references are to Web instances of traditional scientific journals. Other types of Web-based information sources are less weIl represented in the lists of references, except in the case of pure e-journals. We conclude that this can be explained by taking the role of the publisher into account. Indeed, it seems that the shift from print-based to electronic publishing has created new roles for the publisher. By shaping the way scientific references are hyperlinking to other information sources, the publisher may have a large impact an the availability of scientific and scholarly information.