Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011582514 = product of:
  0.06949508 = sum of:
    0.06949508 = weight(_text_:united in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06949508 = score(doc=4920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

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

0.011582514 = product of:
  0.06949508 = sum of:
    0.06949508 = weight(_text_:united in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06949508 = score(doc=947,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 947, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=947)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Altmetrics are web-based quantitative impact or attention indicators for academic articles that have been proposed to supplement citation counts. This article reports the first assessment of the extent to which mature altmetrics from Altmetric.com and Mendeley associate with individual article quality scores. It exploits expert norm-referenced peer review scores from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 for 67,030+ journal articles in all fields 2014-2017/2018, split into 34 broadly field-based Units of Assessment (UoAs). Altmetrics correlated more strongly with research quality than previously found, although less strongly than raw and field normalized Scopus citation counts. Surprisingly, field normalizing citation counts can reduce their strength as a quality indicator for articles in a single field. For most UoAs, Mendeley reader counts are the best altmetric (e.g., three Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.5), tweet counts are also a moderate strength indicator in eight UoAs (Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.3), ahead of news (eight correlations above 0.3, but generally weaker), blogs (five correlations above 0.3), and Facebook (three correlations above 0.3) citations, at least in the United Kingdom. In general, altmetrics are the strongest indicators of research quality in the health and physical sciences and weakest in the arts and humanities.

0.0022564186 = product of:
  0.0135385115 = sum of:
    0.0135385115 = product of:
      0.027077023 = sum of:
        0.027077023 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027077023 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13996868 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039970156 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0022564186 = product of:
  0.0135385115 = sum of:
    0.0135385115 = product of:
      0.027077023 = sum of:
        0.027077023 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027077023 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13996868 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039970156 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0022564186 = product of:
  0.0135385115 = sum of:
    0.0135385115 = product of:
      0.027077023 = sum of:
        0.027077023 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027077023 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13996868 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039970156 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50