-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.04
0.03980363 = product of:
0.07960726 = sum of:
0.07960726 = sum of:
0.037263542 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037263542 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.052088603 = queryNorm
0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
0.042343717 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042343717 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052088603 = 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)
- Abstract
- Counts of tweets and Mendeley user libraries have been proposed as altmetric alternatives to citation counts for the impact assessment of articles. Although both have been investigated to discover whether they correlate with article citations, it is not known whether users tend to tweet or save (in Mendeley) the same kinds of articles that they cite. In response, this article compares pairs of articles that are tweeted, saved to a Mendeley library, or cited by the same user, but possibly a different user for each source. The study analyzes 1,131,318 articles published in 2012, with minimum tweeted (10), saved to Mendeley (100), and cited (10) thresholds. The results show surprisingly minor overall overlaps between the three phenomena. The importance of journals for Twitter and the presence of many bots at different levels of activity suggest that this site has little value for impact altmetrics. The moderate differences between patterns of saving and citation suggest that Mendeley can be used for some types of impact assessments, but sensitivity is needed for underlying differences.
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
-
Thelwall, M.: Directing students to new information types : a new role for Google in literature searches? (2005)
0.02
0.015370426 = product of:
0.030740852 = sum of:
0.030740852 = product of:
0.061481703 = sum of:
0.061481703 = weight(_text_:libraries in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061481703 = score(doc=364,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.052088603 = queryNorm
0.35930282 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, 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.
- Source
- Libraries and Google. Eds.: Miller, W. u. R.M. Pellen
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
0.014114574 = product of:
0.028229147 = sum of:
0.028229147 = product of:
0.056458294 = sum of:
0.056458294 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056458294 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052088603 = 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
0.012475638 = product of:
0.024951275 = sum of:
0.024951275 = product of:
0.04990255 = sum of:
0.04990255 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04990255 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052088603 = 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.: Bibliometrics to webometrics (2009)
0.01
0.0108685335 = product of:
0.021737067 = sum of:
0.021737067 = product of:
0.043474134 = sum of:
0.043474134 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043474134 = score(doc=4239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.052088603 = queryNorm
0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 4239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4239)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Bibliometrics has changed out of all recognition since 1958; becoming established as a field, being taught widely in library and information science schools, and being at the core of a number of science evaluation research groups around the world. This was all made possible by the work of Eugene Garfield and his Science Citation Index. This article reviews the distance that bibliometrics has travelled since 1958 by comparing early bibliometrics with current practice, and by giving an overview of a range of recent developments, such as patent analysis, national research evaluation exercises, visualization techniques, new applications, online citation indexes, and the creation of digital libraries. Webometrics, a modern, fast-growing offshoot of bibliometrics, is reviewed in detail. Finally, future prospects are discussed with regard to both bibliometrics and webometrics.
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011)
0.01
0.010585929 = product of:
0.021171859 = sum of:
0.021171859 = product of:
0.042343717 = sum of:
0.042343717 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042343717 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052088603 = 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
0.010585929 = product of:
0.021171859 = sum of:
0.021171859 = product of:
0.042343717 = sum of:
0.042343717 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042343717 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052088603 = 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
0.010585929 = product of:
0.021171859 = sum of:
0.021171859 = product of:
0.042343717 = sum of:
0.042343717 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042343717 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052088603 = 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
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.01
0.0088216085 = product of:
0.017643217 = sum of:
0.017643217 = product of:
0.035286434 = sum of:
0.035286434 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035286434 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052088603 = 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
0.0088216085 = product of:
0.017643217 = sum of:
0.017643217 = product of:
0.035286434 = sum of:
0.035286434 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035286434 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052088603 = 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
0.0088216085 = product of:
0.017643217 = sum of:
0.017643217 = product of:
0.035286434 = sum of:
0.035286434 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035286434 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052088603 = 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
0.0088216085 = product of:
0.017643217 = sum of:
0.017643217 = product of:
0.035286434 = sum of:
0.035286434 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035286434 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052088603 = 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
0.0088216085 = product of:
0.017643217 = sum of:
0.017643217 = product of:
0.035286434 = sum of:
0.035286434 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035286434 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052088603 = 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
0.0088216085 = product of:
0.017643217 = sum of:
0.017643217 = product of:
0.035286434 = sum of:
0.035286434 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035286434 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052088603 = 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
0.0088216085 = product of:
0.017643217 = sum of:
0.017643217 = product of:
0.035286434 = sum of:
0.035286434 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035286434 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052088603 = 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
-
Zuccala, A.; Thelwall, M.; Oppenheim, C.; Dhiensa, R.: Web intelligence analyses of digital libraries : a case study of the National electronic Library for Health (NeLH) (2007)
0.01
0.008783101 = product of:
0.017566202 = sum of:
0.017566202 = product of:
0.035132404 = sum of:
0.035132404 = weight(_text_:libraries in 838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035132404 = score(doc=838,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.052088603 = queryNorm
0.2053159 = fieldWeight in 838, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=838)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of LexiURL as a Web intelligence tool for collecting and analysing links to digital libraries, focusing specifically on the National electronic Library for Health (NeLH). Design/methodology/approach - The Web intelligence techniques in this study are a combination of link analysis (web structure mining), web server log file analysis (web usage mining), and text analysis (web content mining), utilizing the power of commercial search engines and drawing upon the information science fields of bibliometrics and webometrics. LexiURL is a computer program designed to calculate summary statistics for lists of links or URLs. Its output is a series of standard reports, for example listing and counting all of the different domain names in the data. Findings - Link data, when analysed together with user transaction log files (i.e. Web referring domains) can provide insights into who is using a digital library and when, and who could be using the digital library if they are "surfing" a particular part of the Web; in this case any site that is linked to or colinked with the NeLH. This study found that the NeLH was embedded in a multifaceted Web context, including many governmental, educational, commercial and organisational sites, with the most interesting being sites from the.edu domain, representing American Universities. Not many links directed to the NeLH were followed on September 25, 2005 (the date of the log file analysis and link extraction analysis), which means that users who access the digital library have been arriving at the site via only a few select links, bookmarks and search engine searches, or non-electronic sources. Originality/value - A number of studies concerning digital library users have been carried out using log file analysis as a research tool. Log files focus on real-time user transactions; while LexiURL can be used to extract links and colinks associated with a digital library's growing Web network. This Web network is not recognized often enough, and can be a useful indication of where potential users are surfing, even if they have not yet specifically visited the NeLH site.
