Search (70 results, page 1 of 4)

0.060657226 = product of:
  0.16680737 = sum of:
    0.091163956 = weight(_text_:higher in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.091163956 = score(doc=995,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.5026005 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.053516448 = weight(_text_:effect in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053516448 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.010430659 = weight(_text_:of in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010430659 = score(doc=995,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.011696288 = product of:
      0.023392577 = sum of:
        0.023392577 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023392577 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = 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)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.791-810

0.04027153 = product of:
  0.110746704 = sum of:
    0.042106826 = weight(_text_:higher in 3048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042106826 = score(doc=3048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.23214121 = fieldWeight in 3048, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3048)
    0.04281316 = weight(_text_:effect in 3048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04281316 = score(doc=3048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.23408018 = fieldWeight in 3048, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3048)
    0.015386548 = weight(_text_:of in 3048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015386548 = score(doc=3048,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.28494355 = fieldWeight in 3048, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3048)
    0.010440165 = weight(_text_:on in 3048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010440165 = score(doc=3048,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.13746344 = fieldWeight in 3048, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3048)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

This study aims to identify the way researchers collaborate with other researchers in the course of the scientific research life cycle and provide information to the designers of e-Science and e-Research implementations. On the basis of in-depth interviews with and on-site observations of 24 scientists and a follow-up focus group interview in the field of bioscience/nanoscience and technology in Korea, we examined scientific collaboration using the framework of the scientific research life cycle. We attempt to explain the major motiBiochemistry is a highly funded research area that is typified by large research teams and is important for many areas of the life sciences. This article investigates the citation impact and Mendeley readership impact of biochemistry research from 2011 in the Web of Science according to the type of collaboration involved. Negative binomial regression models are used that incorporate, for the first time, the inclusion of specific countries within a team. The results show that, holding other factors constant, larger teams robustly associate with higher impact research, but including additional departments has no effect and adding extra institutions tends to reduce the impact of research. Although international collaboration is apparently not advantageous in general, collaboration with the United States, and perhaps also with some other countries, seems to increase impact. In contrast, collaborations with some other nations seems to decrease impact, although both findings could be due to factors such as differing national proportions of excellent researchers. As a methodological implication, simpler statistical models would find international collaboration to be generally beneficial and so it is important to take into account specific countries when examining collaboration.t only in the beginning phase of the cycle. For communication and information-sharing practices, scientists continue to favor traditional means of communication for security reasons. Barriers to collaboration throughout the phases included different priorities, competitive tensions, and a hierarchical culture among collaborators, whereas credit sharing was a barrier in the research product phase.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.8, S.1849-1857

0.033307754 = product of:
  0.09159632 = sum of:
    0.05263353 = weight(_text_:higher in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263353 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2901765 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.013193856 = weight(_text_:of in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013193856 = score(doc=2734,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.009227889 = weight(_text_:on in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009227889 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.016541049 = product of:
      0.033082098 = sum of:
        0.033082098 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033082098 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = 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)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

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

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.434-442

0.032829076 = product of:
  0.12037327 = sum of:
    0.091163956 = weight(_text_:higher in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.091163956 = score(doc=1850,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.5026005 = fieldWeight in 1850, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1850)
    0.016159108 = weight(_text_:of in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016159108 = score(doc=1850,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 1850, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1850)
    0.013050207 = weight(_text_:on in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013050207 = score(doc=1850,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 1850, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1850)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

International collaboration tends to result in more highly cited research and, partly as a result of this, many research funding schemes are specifically international in scope. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether this citation advantage is the result of higher quality research or due to other factors, such as a larger audience for the publications. To test whether the apparent advantage of internationally collaborative research may be due to additional interest in articles from the countries of the authors, this article assesses the extent to which the national affiliations of the authors of articles affect the national affiliations of their Mendeley readers. Based on English-language Web of Science articles in 10 fields from science, medicine, social science, and the humanities, the results of statistical models comparing author and reader affiliations suggest that, in most fields, Mendeley users are disproportionately readers of articles authored from within their own country. In addition, there are several cases in which Mendeley users from certain countries tend to ignore articles from specific other countries, although it is not clear whether this reflects national biases or different national specialisms within a field. In conclusion, research funders should not incentivize international collaboration on the basis that it is, in general, higher quality because its higher impact may be primarily due to its larger audience. Moreover, authors should guard against national biases in their reading to select only the best and most relevant publications to inform their research.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.6, S.1124-1135

0.03252608 = product of:
  0.119262286 = sum of:
    0.016793035 = weight(_text_:of in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016793035 = score(doc=3764,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
    0.09139578 = weight(_text_:technological in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09139578 = score(doc=3764,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.49812943 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
    0.011073467 = weight(_text_:on in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011073467 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Patents sometimes cite webpages either as general background to the problem being addressed or to identify prior publications that limit the scope of the patent granted. Counts of the number of patents citing an organization's website may therefore provide an indicator of its technological capacity or relevance. This article introduces methods to extract URL citations from patents and evaluates the usefulness of counts of patent web citations as a technology indicator. An analysis of patents citing 200 US universities or 177 UK universities found computer science and engineering departments to be frequently cited, as well as research-related webpages, such as Wikipedia, YouTube, or the Internet Archive. Overall, however, patent URL citations seem to be frequent enough to be useful for ranking major US and the top few UK universities if popular hosted subdomains are filtered out, but the hit count estimates on the first search engine results page should not be relied upon for accuracy.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.1967-1974

0.024572 = product of:
  0.13514599 = sum of:
    0.11769216 = weight(_text_:higher in 2123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11769216 = score(doc=2123,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.64885443 = fieldWeight in 2123, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2123)
    0.01745383 = weight(_text_:of in 2123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01745383 = score(doc=2123,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 2123, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2123)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

The quality and impact of academic Web sites is of interest to many audiences, including the scholars who use them and Web educators who need to identify best practice. Several large-scale European Union research projects have been funded to build new indicators for online scientific activity, reflecting recognition of the importance of the Web for scholarly communication. In this paper we address the key question of whether higher rated scholars produce higher impact Web sites, using the United Kingdom as a case study and measuring scholars' quality in terms of university-wide average research ratings. Methodological issues concerning the measurement of the online impact are discussed, leading to the adoption of counts of links to a university's constituent single domain Web sites from an aggregated counting metric. The findings suggest that universities with higher rated scholars produce significantly more Web content but with a similar average online impact. Higher rated scholars therefore attract more total links from their peers, but only by being more prolific, refuting earlier suggestions. It can be surmised that general Web publications are very different from scholarly journal articles and conference papers, for which scholarly quality does associate with citation impact. This has important implications for the construction of new Web indicators, for example that online impact should not be used to assess the quality of small groups of scholars, even within a single discipline.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.2, S.149-159

0.024106678 = product of:
  0.08839115 = sum of:
    0.06316024 = weight(_text_:higher in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06316024 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.34821182 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
    0.011195358 = weight(_text_:of in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011195358 = score(doc=3211,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
    0.014035545 = product of:
      0.02807109 = sum of:
        0.02807109 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02807109 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = 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)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Scientists and managers using citation-based indicators to help evaluate research cannot evaluate recent articles because of the time needed for citations to accrue. Reading occurs before citing, however, and so it makes sense to count readers rather than citations for recent publications. To assess this, Mendeley readers and citations were obtained for articles from 2004 to late 2014 in five broad categories (agriculture, business, decision science, pharmacy, and the social sciences) and 50 subcategories. In these areas, citation counts tended to increase with every extra year since publication, and readership counts tended to increase faster initially but then stabilize after about 5 years. The correlation between citations and readers was also higher for longer time periods, stabilizing after about 5 years. Although there were substantial differences between broad fields and smaller differences between subfields, the results confirm the value of Mendeley reader counts as early scientific impact indicators.

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3036-3050

0.023985045 = product of:
  0.08794516 = sum of:
    0.06316024 = weight(_text_:higher in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06316024 = score(doc=1258,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.34821182 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
    0.013711456 = weight(_text_:of in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013711456 = score(doc=1258,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
    0.011073467 = weight(_text_:on in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011073467 = score(doc=1258,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Journal-based citations are an important source of data for impact indices. However, the impact of journal articles extends beyond formal scholarly discourse. Measuring online scholarly impact calls for new indices, complementary to the older ones. This article examines a possible alternative metric source, blog posts aggregated at ResearchBlogging.org, which discuss peer-reviewed articles and provide full bibliographic references. Articles reviewed in these blogs therefore receive "blog citations." We hypothesized that articles receiving blog citations close to their publication time receive more journal citations later than the articles in the same journal published in the same year that did not receive such blog citations. Statistically significant evidence for articles published in 2009 and 2010 support this hypothesis for seven of 12 journals (58%) in 2009 and 13 of 19 journals (68%) in 2010. We suggest, based on these results, that blog citations can be used as an alternative metric source.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.1018-1027

0.022828344 = product of:
  0.08370393 = sum of:
    0.0139941955 = weight(_text_:of in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0139941955 = score(doc=4279,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
    0.009227889 = weight(_text_:on in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009227889 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
    0.060481843 = weight(_text_:great in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060481843 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = 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)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

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.

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 39(2005), S.81-138

0.019415697 = product of:
  0.071190886 = sum of:
    0.05263353 = weight(_text_:higher in 2190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263353 = score(doc=2190,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2901765 = fieldWeight in 2190, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2190)
    0.009329465 = weight(_text_:of in 2190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009329465 = score(doc=2190,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 2190, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2190)
    0.009227889 = weight(_text_:on in 2190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009227889 = score(doc=2190,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2190, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2190)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Although there is evidence that counting the readers of an article in the social reference site, Mendeley, may help to capture its research impact, the extent to which this is true for different scientific fields is unknown. In this study, we compare Mendeley readership counts with citations for different social sciences and humanities disciplines. The overall correlation between Mendeley readership counts and citations for the social sciences was higher than for the humanities. Low and medium correlations between Mendeley bookmarks and citation counts in all the investigated disciplines suggest that these measures reflect different aspects of research impact. Mendeley data were also used to discover patterns of information flow between scientific fields. Comparing information flows based on Mendeley bookmarking data and cross-disciplinary citation analysis for the disciplines revealed substantial similarities and some differences. Thus, the evidence from this study suggests that Mendeley readership data could be used to help capture knowledge transfer across scientific disciplines, especially for people that read but do not author articles, as well as giving impact evidence at an earlier stage than is possible with citation counts.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.8, S.1627-1638

0.018044274 = product of:
  0.09924351 = sum of:
    0.091163956 = weight(_text_:higher in 5952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.091163956 = score(doc=5952,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.5026005 = fieldWeight in 5952, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5952)
    0.008079554 = weight(_text_:of in 5952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008079554 = score(doc=5952,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.1496253 = fieldWeight in 5952, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5952)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Research collaboration is promoted by governments and research funders, but if the relative prevalence and merits of collaboration vary internationally then different national and disciplinary strategies may be needed to promote it. This study compares the team size and field normalized citation impact of research across all 27 Scopus broad fields in the 10 countries with the most journal articles indexed in Scopus 2008-2012. The results show that team size varies substantially by discipline and country, with Japan (4.2) having two-thirds more authors per article than the United Kingdom (2.5). Solo authorship is rare in China (4%) but common in the United Kingdom (27%). While increasing team size associates with higher citation impact in almost all countries and fields, this association is much weaker in China than elsewhere. There are also field differences in the association between citation impact and collaboration. For example, larger team sizes in the Business, Management & Accounting category do not seem to associate with greater research impact, and for China and India, solo authorship associates with higher citation impact in this field. Overall, there are substantial international and field differences in the extent to which researchers collaborate and the extent to which collaboration associates with higher citation impact.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.8, S.968-978

0.012831637 = product of:
  0.070574 = sum of:
    0.01745383 = weight(_text_:of in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01745383 = score(doc=6851,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 6851, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6851)
    0.053120166 = product of:
      0.10624033 = sum of:
        0.10624033 = weight(_text_:britain in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10624033 = score(doc=6851,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25769958 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = 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)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

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

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.13, S.1157-1168

0.012251766 = product of:
  0.06738471 = sum of:
    0.05263353 = weight(_text_:higher in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263353 = score(doc=1548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2901765 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
    0.014751178 = weight(_text_:of in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014751178 = score(doc=1548,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Citation indicators are increasingly used in book-based disciplines to support peer review in the evaluation of authors and to gauge the prestige of publishers. However, because global citation databases seem to offer weak coverage of books outside the West, it is not clear whether the influence of non-Western books can be assessed with citations. To investigate this, citations were extracted from Google Books and Google Scholar to 1,357 arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS) books published by 5 university presses during 1961-2012 in 1 non-Western nation, Malaysia. A significant minority of the books (23% in Google Books and 37% in Google Scholar, 45% in total) had been cited, with a higher proportion cited if they were older or in English. The combination of Google Books and Google Scholar is therefore recommended, with some provisos, for non-Western countries seeking to differentiate between books with some impact and books with no impact, to identify the highly-cited works or to develop an indicator of academic publisher prestige.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.12, S.2498-2508

0.012135926 = product of:
  0.04449839 = sum of:
    0.016818931 = weight(_text_:of in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016818931 = score(doc=586,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.015983174 = weight(_text_:on in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015983174 = score(doc=586,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.011696288 = product of:
      0.023392577 = sum of:
        0.023392577 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023392577 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = 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)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.11, S.1631-1644

0.010772093 = product of:
  0.039497674 = sum of:
    0.014751178 = weight(_text_:of in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014751178 = score(doc=3806,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
    0.013050207 = weight(_text_:on in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013050207 = score(doc=3806,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
    0.011696288 = product of:
      0.023392577 = sum of:
        0.023392577 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023392577 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = 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)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Purpose Mendeley reader counts have been proposed as early indicators for the impact of academic publications. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether there are enough Mendeley readers for research evaluation purposes during the month when an article is first published. Design/methodology/approach Average Mendeley reader counts were compared to the average Scopus citation counts for 104,520 articles from ten disciplines during the second half of 2016. Findings Articles attracted, on average, between 0.1 and 0.8 Mendeley readers per article in the month in which they first appeared in Scopus. This is about ten times more than the average Scopus citation count. Research limitations/implications Other disciplines may use Mendeley more or less than the ten investigated here. The results are dependent on Scopus's indexing practices, and Mendeley reader counts can be manipulated and have national and seniority biases. Practical implications Mendeley reader counts during the month of publication are more powerful than Scopus citations for comparing the average impacts of groups of documents but are not high enough to differentiate between the impacts of typical individual articles. Originality/value This is the first multi-disciplinary and systematic analysis of Mendeley reader counts from the publication month of an article.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.2, S.174-183

0.00959377 = product of:
  0.035177156 = sum of:
    0.010430659 = weight(_text_:of in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010430659 = score(doc=178,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
    0.013050207 = weight(_text_:on in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013050207 = score(doc=178,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
    0.011696288 = product of:
      0.023392577 = sum of:
        0.023392577 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023392577 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = 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)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 72(2020) no.6, S.945-962

0.006655426 = product of:
  0.036604844 = sum of:
    0.020944597 = weight(_text_:of in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020944597 = score(doc=2768,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.38787308 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
    0.015660247 = weight(_text_:on in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015660247 = score(doc=2768,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.566-581

0.0065169027 = product of:
  0.035842963 = sum of:
    0.020182718 = weight(_text_:of in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020182718 = score(doc=737,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
    0.015660247 = weight(_text_:on in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015660247 = score(doc=737,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

This study investigates a range of metrics available when a nanoscience and nanotechnology article is published to see which metrics correlate more with the number of citations to the article. It also introduces the degree of internationality of journals and references as new metrics for this purpose. The journal impact factor; the impact of references; the internationality of authors, journals, and references; and the number of authors, institutions, and references were all calculated for papers published in nanoscience and nanotechnology journals in the Web of Science from 2007 to 2009. Using a zero-inflated negative binomial regression model on the data set, the impact factor of the publishing journal and the citation impact of the cited references were found to be the most effective determinants of citation counts in all four time periods. In the entire 2007 to 2009 period, apart from journal internationality and author numbers and internationality, all other predictor variables had significant effects on citation counts.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.1055-1064

0.00629607 = product of:
  0.034628384 = sum of:
    0.0139941955 = weight(_text_:of in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0139941955 = score(doc=1229,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
    0.02063419 = weight(_text_:on in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02063419 = score(doc=1229,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.271686 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Data collected by social media platforms have been introduced as new sources for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation analysis. Data generated from social media activities can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This article aims to provide systematic evidence about how often Twitter is used to disseminate information about journal articles in the biomedical sciences. The analysis is based on 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science and published between 2010 and 2012. The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed and compared to citations to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter and how far tweets correlate with citation impact. With less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general but differs between journals and specialties. Correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework using the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media-based metrics.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.656-669

0.0062228455 = product of:
  0.03422565 = sum of:
    0.018565401 = weight(_text_:of in 3906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018565401 = score(doc=3906,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 3906, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3906)
    0.015660247 = weight(_text_:on in 3906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015660247 = score(doc=3906,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 3906, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3906)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Webometrics is an information science field concerned with measuring aspects of the World Wide Web (WWW) for a variety of information science research goals. It came into existence about five years after the Web was formed and has since grown to become a significant aspect of information science, at least in terms of published research. Although some webometrics research has focused on the structure or evolution of the Web itself or the performance of commercial search engines, most has used data from the Web to shed light on information provision or online communication in various contexts. Most prominently, techniques have been developed to track, map, and assess Web-based informal scholarly communication, for example, in terms of the hyperlinks between academic Web sites or the online impact of digital repositories. In addition, a range of nonacademic issues and groups of Web users have also been analyzed.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates