Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015085125 = product of:
  0.075425625 = sum of:
    0.075425625 = weight(_text_:great in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075425625 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2424797 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.

0.013249005 = product of:
  0.06624503 = sum of:
    0.06624503 = product of:
      0.13249005 = sum of:
        0.13249005 = weight(_text_:britain in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13249005 = score(doc=6851,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32137164 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.4122643 = fieldWeight in 6851, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6851)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Much has been written about the potential and pitfalls of macroscopic Web-based link analysis, yet there have been no studies that have provided clear statistical evidence that any of the proposed calculations can produce results over large areas of the Web that correlate with phenomena external to the Internet. This article attempts to provide such evidence through an evaluation of Ingwersen's (1998) proposed external Web Impact Factor (WIF) for the original use of the Web: the interlinking of academic research. In particular, it studies the case of the relationship between academic hyperlinks and research activity for universities in Britain, a country chosen for its variety of institutions and the existence of an official government rating exercise for research. After reviewing the numerous reasons why link counts may be unreliable, it demonstrates that four different WIFs do, in fact, correlate with the conventional academic research measures. The WIF delivering the greatest correlation with research rankings was the ratio of Web pages with links pointing at research-based pages to faculty numbers. The scarcity of links to electronic academic papers in the data set suggests that, in contrast to citation analysis, this WIF is measuring the reputations of universities and their scholars, rather than the quality of their publications

0.010560473 = product of:
  0.052802365 = sum of:
    0.052802365 = weight(_text_:education in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052802365 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.260262 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

We use a new data gathering method, "Web/URL citation," Web/URL and Google Scholar to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, and education) based upon a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 open access (OA) journals published in 2001. A Web/URL citation of an online journal article is a Web mention of its title, URL, or both. For each discipline, except psychology, we found significant correlations between Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI, here: ISI) citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations. Google Scholar citations correlated more highly with ISI citations than did Google Web/URL citations, indicating that the Web/URL method measures a broader type of citation phenomenon. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines, suggesting that Google Scholar is more comprehensive for social sciences and perhaps also when conference articles are valued and published online. We also found large disciplinary differences in the percentage overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citation sources. Finally, although we found many significant trends, there were also numerous exceptions, suggesting that replacing traditional citation sources with the Web or Google Scholar for research impact calculations would be problematic.

0.010560473 = product of:
  0.052802365 = sum of:
    0.052802365 = weight(_text_:education in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052802365 = score(doc=382,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.260262 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.010560473 = product of:
  0.052802365 = sum of:
    0.052802365 = weight(_text_:education in 3226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052802365 = score(doc=3226,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.260262 = fieldWeight in 3226, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3226)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Scholars writing books that are widely used to support teaching in higher education may be undervalued because of a lack of evidence of teaching value. Although sales data may give credible evidence for textbooks, these data may poorly reflect educational uses of other types of books. As an alternative, this article proposes a method to search automatically for mentions of books in online academic course syllabi based on Bing searches for syllabi mentioning a given book, filtering out false matches through an extensive set of rules. The method had an accuracy of over 90% based on manual checks of a sample of 2,600 results from the initial Bing searches. Over one third of about 14,000 monographs checked had one or more academic syllabus mention, with more in the arts and humanities (56%) and social sciences (52%). Low but significant correlations between syllabus mentions and citations across most fields, except the social sciences, suggest that books tend to have different levels of impact for teaching and research. In conclusion, the automatic syllabus search method gives a new way to estimate the educational utility of books in a way that sales data and citation counts cannot.

0.010560473 = product of:
  0.052802365 = sum of:
    0.052802365 = weight(_text_:education in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052802365 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.260262 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Individual academics and research evaluators often need to assess the value of published research. Although citation counts are a recognized indicator of scholarly impact, alternative data is needed to provide evidence of other types of impact, including within education and wider society. Wikipedia is a logical choice for both of these because the role of a general encyclopaedia is to be an understandable repository of facts about a diverse array of topics and hence it may cite research to support its claims. To test whether Wikipedia could provide new evidence about the impact of scholarly research, this article counted citations to 302,328 articles and 18,735 monographs in English indexed by Scopus in the period 2005 to 2012. The results show that citations from Wikipedia to articles are too rare for most research evaluation purposes, with only 5% of articles being cited in all fields. In contrast, a third of monographs have at least one citation from Wikipedia, with the most in the arts and humanities. Hence, Wikipedia citations can provide extra impact evidence for academic monographs. Nevertheless, the results may be relatively easily manipulated and so Wikipedia is not recommended for evaluations affecting stakeholder interests.

0.010560473 = product of:
  0.052802365 = sum of:
    0.052802365 = weight(_text_:education in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052802365 = score(doc=3766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.260262 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

SlideShare is a free social website that aims to help users distribute and find presentations. Owned by LinkedIn since 2012, it targets a professional audience but may give value to scholarship through creating a long-term record of the content of talks. This article tests this hypothesis by analyzing sets of general and scholarly related SlideShare documents using content and citation analysis and popularity statistics reported on the site. The results suggest that academics, students, and teachers are a minority of SlideShare uploaders, especially since 2010, with most documents not being directly related to scholarship or teaching. About two thirds of uploaded SlideShare documents are presentation slides, with the remainder often being files associated with presentations or video recordings of talks. SlideShare is therefore a presentation-centered site with a predominantly professional user base. Although a minority of the uploaded SlideShare documents are cited by, or cite, academic publications, probably too few articles are cited by SlideShare to consider extracting SlideShare citations for research evaluation. Nevertheless, scholars should consider SlideShare to be a potential source of academic and nonacademic information, particularly in library and information science, education, and business.

0.0046675815 = product of:
  0.023337906 = sum of:
    0.023337906 = product of:
      0.046675812 = sum of:
        0.046675812 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046675812 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

0.0041255984 = product of:
  0.02062799 = sum of:
    0.02062799 = product of:
      0.04125598 = sum of:
        0.04125598 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04125598 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.0035006858 = product of:
  0.01750343 = sum of:
    0.01750343 = product of:
      0.03500686 = sum of:
        0.03500686 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03500686 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:27:06

0.0035006858 = product of:
  0.01750343 = sum of:
    0.01750343 = product of:
      0.03500686 = sum of:
        0.03500686 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03500686 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

0.0035006858 = product of:
  0.01750343 = sum of:
    0.01750343 = product of:
      0.03500686 = sum of:
        0.03500686 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03500686 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

0.0035006858 = product of:
  0.01750343 = sum of:
    0.01750343 = product of:
      0.03500686 = sum of:
        0.03500686 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03500686 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

0.0029172383 = product of:
  0.014586192 = sum of:
    0.014586192 = product of:
      0.029172383 = sum of:
        0.029172383 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029172383 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.0029172383 = product of:
  0.014586192 = sum of:
    0.014586192 = product of:
      0.029172383 = sum of:
        0.029172383 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029172383 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:29:23

0.0029172383 = product of:
  0.014586192 = sum of:
    0.014586192 = product of:
      0.029172383 = sum of:
        0.029172383 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029172383 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

6. 4.2012 18:16:22

0.0029172383 = product of:
  0.014586192 = sum of:
    0.014586192 = product of:
      0.029172383 = sum of:
        0.029172383 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029172383 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0029172383 = product of:
  0.014586192 = sum of:
    0.014586192 = product of:
      0.029172383 = sum of:
        0.029172383 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029172383 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0029172383 = product of:
  0.014586192 = sum of:
    0.014586192 = product of:
      0.029172383 = sum of:
        0.029172383 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029172383 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0029172383 = product of:
  0.014586192 = sum of:
    0.014586192 = product of:
      0.029172383 = sum of:
        0.029172383 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029172383 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50