Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.018428948 = product of:
  0.07371579 = sum of:
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 3781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=3781,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 3781, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3781)
    0.031888437 = product of:
      0.06377687 = sum of:
        0.06377687 = weight(_text_:area in 3781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06377687 = score(doc=3781,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.32663327 = fieldWeight in 3781, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Social media has become integrated into the fabric of the scholarly communication system in fundamental ways, principally through scholarly use of social media platforms and the promotion of new indicators on the basis of interactions with these platforms. Research and scholarship in this area has accelerated since the coining and subsequent advocacy for altmetrics-that is, research indicators based on social media activity. This review provides an extensive account of the state-of-the art in both scholarly use of social media and altmetrics. The review consists of 2 main parts: the first examines the use of social media in academia, reviewing the various functions these platforms have in the scholarly communication process and the factors that affect this use. The second part reviews empirical studies of altmetrics, discussing the various interpretations of altmetrics, data collection and methodological limitations, and differences according to platform. The review ends with a critical discussion of the implications of this transformation in the scholarly communication system.

0.0073941024 = product of:
  0.05915282 = sum of:
    0.05915282 = weight(_text_:studies in 3338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05915282 = score(doc=3338,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.37408823 = fieldWeight in 3338, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3338)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Since the publication of Robert K. Merton's theory of cumulative advantage in science (Matthew Effect), several empirical studies have tried to measure its presence at the level of papers, individual researchers, institutions, or countries. However, these studies seldom control for the intrinsic quality of papers or of researchers - better (however defined) papers or researchers could receive higher citation rates because they are indeed of better quality. Using an original method for controlling the intrinsic value of papers - identical duplicate papers published in different journals with different impact factors - this paper shows that the journal in which papers are published have a strong influence on their citation rates, as duplicate papers published in high-impact journals obtain, on average, twice as many citations as their identical counterparts published in journals with lower impact factors. The intrinsic value of a paper is thus not the only reason a given paper gets cited or not, there is a specific Matthew Effect attached to journals and this gives to papers published there an added value over and above their intrinsic quality.

0.0063469075 = product of:
  0.05077526 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=2497,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 2497, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2497)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The organization of scientific papers typically follows a standardized pattern, the well-known IMRaD structure (introduction, methods, results, and discussion). Using the full text of 45,000 papers published in the PLoS series of journals as a case study, this paper investigates, from the viewpoint of bibliometrics, how references are distributed along the structure of scientific papers as well as the age of these cited references. Once the sections of articles are realigned to follow the IMRaD sequence, the position of cited references along the text of articles is invariant across all PLoS journals, with the introduction and discussion accounting for most of the references. It also provides evidence that the age of cited references varies by section, with older references being found in the methods and more recent references in the discussion. These results provide insight into the different roles citations have in the scholarly communication process.

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 4943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=4943,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 4943, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4943)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=284,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 284, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=284)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This article analyzes the effects of publication language on the international scientific visibility of Russia using the Web of Science (WoS). Like other developing and transition countries, it is subject to a growing pressure to "internationalize" its scientific activities, which primarily means a shift to English as a language of scientific communication. But to what extent does the transition to English improve the impact of research? The case of Russia is of interest in this respect as the existence of many combinations of national journals and languages of publications (namely, Russian and English, including translated journals) provide a kind of natural I experiment to test the effects of language and publisher's country on the international visibility of research through citations as well as on the referencing practices of authors. Our analysis points to the conclusion that the production of original English-language papers in foreign journals is a more efficient strategy of internationalization than the mere translation of domestic journals. If the objective of a country is to maximize the international visibility of its scientific work, then the efforts should go into the promotion of publication in reputed English-language journals to profit from the added effect provided by the Matthew effect of these venues.

0.0010066881 = product of:
  0.008053505 = sum of:
    0.008053505 = product of:
      0.01610701 = sum of:
        0.01610701 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01610701 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22