Search (24 results, page 1 of 2)

0.04326363 = product of:
  0.08652726 = sum of:
    0.08652726 = sum of:
      0.055699546 = weight(_text_:subject in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055699546 = score(doc=2593,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.03082771 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03082771 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = 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)

Abstract

Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.037877556 = product of:
  0.07575511 = sum of:
    0.07575511 = sum of:
      0.032158148 = weight(_text_:subject in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032158148 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.043596964 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043596964 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = 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)

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

0.03149293 = product of:
  0.06298586 = sum of:
    0.06298586 = sum of:
      0.032158148 = weight(_text_:subject in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032158148 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.03082771 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03082771 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = 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.

0.02411861 = product of:
  0.04823722 = sum of:
    0.04823722 = product of:
      0.09647444 = sum of:
        0.09647444 = weight(_text_:subject in 2375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09647444 = score(doc=2375,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.5927426 = fieldWeight in 2375, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2375)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Interdisciplinary collaboration is a major goal in research policy. This study uses citation analysis to examine diverse subjects in the Web of Science and Scopus to ascertain whether, in general, research published in journals classified in more than one subject is more highly cited than research published in journals classified in a single subject. For each subject, the study divides the journals into two disjoint sets called Multi and Mono. Multi consists of all journals in the subject and at least one other subject whereas Mono consists of all journals in the subject and in no other subject. The main findings are: (a) For social science subject categories in both the Web of Science and Scopus, the average citation levels of articles in Mono and Multi are very similar; and (b) for Scopus subject categories within life sciences, health sciences, and physical sciences, the average citation level of Mono articles is roughly twice that of Multi articles. Hence, one cannot assume that in general, multidisciplinary research will be more highly cited, and the converse is probably true for many areas of science. A policy implication is that, at least in the sciences, multidisciplinary researchers should not be evaluated by citations on the same basis as monodisciplinary researchers.

0.016079074 = product of:
  0.032158148 = sum of:
    0.032158148 = product of:
      0.064316295 = sum of:
        0.064316295 = weight(_text_:subject in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064316295 = score(doc=4465,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Increasing interdisciplinarity has been a policy objective since the 1990s, promoted by many governments and funding agencies, but the question is: How deeply has this affected the social sciences? Although numerous articles have suggested that research has become more interdisciplinary, yet no study has compared the extent to which the interdisciplinarity of different social science subjects has changed. To address this gap, changes in the level of interdisciplinarity since 1980 are investigated for subjects with many articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), using the percentage of cross-disciplinary citing documents (PCDCD) to evaluate interdisciplinarity. For the 14 SSCI subjects investigated, the median level of interdisciplinarity, as measured using cross-disciplinary citations, declined from 1980 to 1990, but rose sharply between 1990 and 2000, confirming previous research. This increase was not fully matched by an increase in the percentage of articles that were assigned to more than one subject category. Nevertheless, although on average the social sciences have recently become more interdisciplinary, the extent of this change varies substantially from subject to subject. The SSCI subject with the largest increase in interdisciplinarity between 1990 and 2000 was Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) but there is evidence that the level of interdisciplinarity of IS&LS increased less quickly during the first decade of this century.

0.01591747 = product of:
  0.03183494 = sum of:
    0.03183494 = product of:
      0.06366988 = sum of:
        0.06366988 = weight(_text_:subject in 3561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06366988 = score(doc=3561,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 3561, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3561)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The value of low frequency words for subject-based academic Web site clustering is assessed. A new technique is introduced to compare the relative clustering power of different vocabularies. The technique is designed for word frequency tests in large document clustering exercises. Results for the Australian and New Zealand academic Web spaces indicate that low frequency words are useful for clustering academic Web sites along subject lines; removing low frequency words results in sites becoming, an average, less dissimilar to sites from other subjects.

0.012331083 = product of:
  0.024662167 = sum of:
    0.024662167 = product of:
      0.049324334 = sum of:
        0.049324334 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049324334 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = 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

0.011369622 = product of:
  0.022739245 = sum of:
    0.022739245 = product of:
      0.04547849 = sum of:
        0.04547849 = weight(_text_:subject in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04547849 = score(doc=157,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Finding new ways to help researchers and administrators understand academic fields is an important task for information scientists. Given the importance of interdisciplinary research, it is essential to be aware of disciplinary differences in aspects of scholarship, such as the significance of recent changes in a field. This paper identifies potential changes in 25 subject categories through a term comparison of words in article titles, keywords and abstracts in 1 year compared to the previous 4 years. The scholarly influence of new research issues is indirectly assessed with a citation analysis of articles matching each trending term. While topic-related words dominate the top terms, style, national focus, and language changes are also evident. Thus, as reflected in Scopus, fields evolve along multiple dimensions. Moreover, while articles exploiting new issues are usually more cited in some fields, such as Organic Chemistry, they are usually less cited in others, including History. The possible causes of new issues being less cited include externally driven temporary factors, such as disease outbreaks, and internally driven temporary decisions, such as a deliberate emphasis on a single topic (e.g., through a journal special issue).

0.011255352 = product of:
  0.022510704 = sum of:
    0.022510704 = product of:
      0.045021407 = sum of:
        0.045021407 = weight(_text_:subject in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045021407 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.009647444 = product of:
  0.019294888 = sum of:
    0.019294888 = product of:
      0.038589776 = sum of:
        0.038589776 = weight(_text_:subject in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038589776 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article Web issue analysis is introduced as a new technique to investigate an issue as reflected on the Web. The issue chosen, integrated water resource management (IWRM), is a United Nations-initiated paradigm for managing water resources in an international context, particularly in developing nations. As with many international governmental initiatives, there is a considerable body of online information about it: 41.381 hypertext markup language (HTML) pages and 28.735 PDF documents mentioning the issue were downloaded. A page uniform resource locator (URL) and link analysis revealed the international and sectoral spread of IWRM. A noun and noun phrase occurrence analysis was used to identify the issues most commonly discussed, revealing some unexpected topics such as private sector and economic growth. Although the complexity of the methods required to produce meaningful statistics from the data is disadvantageous to easy interpretation, it was still possible to produce data that could be subject to a reasonably intuitive interpretation. Hence Web issue analysis is claimed to be a useful new technique for information science.

0.009647444 = product of:
  0.019294888 = sum of:
    0.019294888 = product of:
      0.038589776 = sum of:
        0.038589776 = weight(_text_:subject in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038589776 = score(doc=2768,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although citation counts are often used to evaluate the research impact of academic publications, they are problematic for books that aim for educational or cultural impact. To fill this gap, this article assesses whether a number of simple metrics derived from Amazon.com reviews of academic books could provide evidence of their impact. Based on a set of 2,739 academic monographs from 2008 and a set of 1,305 best-selling books in 15 Amazon.com academic subject categories, the existence of significant but low or moderate correlations between citations and numbers of reviews, combined with other evidence, suggests that online book reviews tend to reflect the wider popularity of a book rather than its academic impact, although there are substantial disciplinary differences. Metrics based on online reviews are therefore recommended for the evaluation of books that aim at a wide audience inside or outside academia when it is important to capture the broader impacts of educational or cultural activities and when they cannot be manipulated in advance of the evaluation.

0.009248313 = product of:
  0.018496625 = sum of:
    0.018496625 = product of:
      0.03699325 = sum of:
        0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03699325 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = 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

0.009248313 = product of:
  0.018496625 = sum of:
    0.018496625 = product of:
      0.03699325 = sum of:
        0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03699325 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = 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

0.009248313 = product of:
  0.018496625 = sum of:
    0.018496625 = product of:
      0.03699325 = sum of:
        0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03699325 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = 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

0.009248313 = product of:
  0.018496625 = sum of:
    0.018496625 = product of:
      0.03699325 = sum of:
        0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03699325 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = 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

0.008039537 = product of:
  0.016079074 = sum of:
    0.016079074 = product of:
      0.032158148 = sum of:
        0.032158148 = weight(_text_:subject in 4450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032158148 = score(doc=4450,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 4450, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4450)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A layered approach for identifying communities in the Web is presented and explored by applying the flake exact community identification algorithm to the UK academic Web. Although community or topic identification is a common task in information retrieval, a new perspective is developed by: the application of alternative document models, shifting the focus from individual pages to aggregated collections based upon Web directories, domains and entire sites; the removal of internal site links; and the adaptation of a new fast algorithm to allow fully-automated community identification using all possible single starting points. The overall topology of the graphs in the three least-aggregated layers was first investigated and found to include a large number of isolated points but, surprisingly, with most of the remainder being in one huge connected component, exact proportions varying by layer. The community identification process then found that the number of communities far exceeded the number of topological components, indicating that community identification is a potentially useful technique, even with random starting points. Both the number and size of communities identified was dependent on the parameter of the algorithm, with very different results being obtained in each case. In conclusion, the UK academic Web is embedded with layers of non-trivial communities and, if it is not unique in this, then there is the promise of improved results for information retrieval algorithms that can exploit this additional structure, and the application of the technique directly to partially automate Web metrics tasks such as that of finding all pages related to a given subject hosted by a single country's universities.

0.008039537 = product of:
  0.016079074 = sum of:
    0.016079074 = product of:
      0.032158148 = sum of:
        0.032158148 = weight(_text_:subject in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032158148 = score(doc=4920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Citation indictors are increasingly used in some subject areas to support peer review in the evaluation of researchers and departments. Nevertheless, traditional journal-based citation indexes may be inadequate for the citation impact assessment of book-based disciplines. This article examines whether online citations from Google Books and Google Scholar can provide alternative sources of citation evidence. To investigate this, we compared the citation counts to 1,000 books submitted to the 2008 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) from Google Books and Google Scholar with Scopus citations across seven book-based disciplines (archaeology; law; politics and international studies; philosophy; sociology; history; and communication, cultural, and media studies). Google Books and Google Scholar citations to books were 1.4 and 3.2 times more common than were Scopus citations, and their medians were more than twice and three times as high as were Scopus median citations, respectively. This large number of citations is evidence that in book-oriented disciplines in the social sciences, arts, and humanities, online book citations may be sufficiently numerous to support peer review for research evaluation, at least in the United Kingdom.

0.008039537 = product of:
  0.016079074 = sum of:
    0.016079074 = product of:
      0.032158148 = sum of:
        0.032158148 = weight(_text_:subject in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032158148 = score(doc=382,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although there is some evidence that online videos are increasingly used by academics for informal scholarly communication and teaching, the extent to which they are used in published academic research is unknown. This article explores the extent to which YouTube videos are cited in academic publications and whether there are significant broad disciplinary differences in this practice. To investigate, we extracted the URL citations to YouTube videos from academic publications indexed by Scopus. A total of 1,808 Scopus publications cited at least one YouTube video, and there was a steady upward growth in citing online videos within scholarly publications from 2006 to 2011, with YouTube citations being most common within arts and humanities (0.3%) and the social sciences (0.2%). A content analysis of 551 YouTube videos cited by research articles indicated that in science (78%) and in medicine and health sciences (77%), over three fourths of the cited videos had either direct scientific (e.g., laboratory experiments) or scientific-related contents (e.g., academic lectures or education) whereas in the arts and humanities, about 80% of the YouTube videos had art, culture, or history themes, and in the social sciences, about 63% of the videos were related to news, politics, advertisements, and documentaries. This shows both the disciplinary differences and the wide variety of innovative research communication uses found for videos within the different subject areas.

0.008039537 = product of:
  0.016079074 = sum of:
    0.016079074 = product of:
      0.032158148 = sum of:
        0.032158148 = weight(_text_:subject in 1658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032158148 = score(doc=1658,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 1658, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1658)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that counting citations from books can help scholarly impact assessment and that Google Books (GB) is a useful source of such citation counts, despite its lack of a public citation index. Searching GB for citations produces approximate matches, however, and so its raw results need time-consuming human filtering. In response, this article introduces a method to automatically remove false and irrelevant matches from GB citation searches in addition to introducing refinements to a previous GB manual citation extraction method. The method was evaluated by manual checking of sampled GB results and comparing citations to about 14,500 monographs in the Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index (BKCI) against automatically extracted citations from GB across 24 subject areas. GB citations were 103% to 137% as numerous as BKCI citations in the humanities, except for tourism (72%) and linguistics (91%), 46% to 85% in social sciences, but only 8% to 53% in the sciences. In all cases, however, GB had substantially more citing books than did BKCI, with BKCI's results coming predominantly from journal articles. Moderate correlations between the GB and BKCI citation counts in social sciences and humanities, with most BKCI results coming from journal articles rather than books, suggests that they could measure the different aspects of impact, however.

0.0077069276 = product of:
  0.015413855 = sum of:
    0.015413855 = product of:
      0.03082771 = sum of:
        0.03082771 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03082771 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = 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