Search (99 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  1. Thelwall, M.; Vann, K.; Fairclough, R.: Web issue analysis : an integrated water resource management case study (2006) 0.03 
    0.026416345 = product of:
  0.05283269 = sum of:
    0.027724843 = weight(_text_:technology in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027724843 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
    0.025107846 = product of:
      0.05021569 = sum of:
        0.05021569 = weight(_text_:management in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05021569 = score(doc=5906,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15891297 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.31599492 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In this article Web issue analysis is introduced as a new technique to investigate an issue as reflected on the Web. The issue chosen, integrated water resource management (IWRM), is a United Nations-initiated paradigm for managing water resources in an international context, particularly in developing nations. As with many international governmental initiatives, there is a considerable body of online information about it: 41.381 hypertext markup language (HTML) pages and 28.735 PDF documents mentioning the issue were downloaded. A page uniform resource locator (URL) and link analysis revealed the international and sectoral spread of IWRM. A noun and noun phrase occurrence analysis was used to identify the issues most commonly discussed, revealing some unexpected topics such as private sector and economic growth. Although the complexity of the methods required to produce meaningful statistics from the data is disadvantageous to easy interpretation, it was still possible to produce data that could be subject to a reasonably intuitive interpretation. Hence Web issue analysis is claimed to be a useful new technique for information science.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.10, S.1303-1314
  2. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010) 0.02 
    0.024321668 = product of:
  0.048643336 = sum of:
    0.032674044 = weight(_text_:technology in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032674044 = score(doc=4200,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.01596929 = product of:
      0.03193858 = sum of:
        0.03193858 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03193858 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16509943 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:29:23
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch das Erratum in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.419
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2544-2558
  3. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011) 0.02 
    0.023443995 = product of:
  0.04688799 = sum of:
    0.027724843 = weight(_text_:technology in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027724843 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
    0.019163147 = product of:
      0.038326293 = sum of:
        0.038326293 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038326293 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16509943 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:27:06
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.406-418
  4. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.02 
    0.023443995 = product of:
  0.04688799 = sum of:
    0.027724843 = weight(_text_:technology in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027724843 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
    0.019163147 = product of:
      0.038326293 = sum of:
        0.038326293 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038326293 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16509943 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    19. 3.2016 12:22:00
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.960-966
  5. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.02 
    0.023443995 = product of:
  0.04688799 = sum of:
    0.027724843 = weight(_text_:technology in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027724843 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
    0.019163147 = product of:
      0.038326293 = sum of:
        0.038326293 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038326293 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16509943 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    16.11.2016 11:07:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3036-3050
  6. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.02 
    0.023443995 = product of:
  0.04688799 = sum of:
    0.027724843 = weight(_text_:technology in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027724843 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
    0.019163147 = product of:
      0.038326293 = sum of:
        0.038326293 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038326293 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16509943 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    28. 7.2018 10:00:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.8, S.959-973
  7. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009) 0.02 
    0.02284401 = product of:
  0.04568802 = sum of:
    0.023104034 = weight(_text_:technology in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023104034 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.022583986 = product of:
      0.04516797 = sum of:
        0.04516797 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04516797 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16509943 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  8. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.02 
    0.019536663 = product of:
  0.039073326 = sum of:
    0.023104034 = weight(_text_:technology in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023104034 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.01596929 = product of:
      0.03193858 = sum of:
        0.03193858 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03193858 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16509943 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  9. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.02 
    0.019536663 = product of:
  0.039073326 = sum of:
    0.023104034 = weight(_text_:technology in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023104034 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
    0.01596929 = product of:
      0.03193858 = sum of:
        0.03193858 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03193858 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16509943 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    6. 4.2012 18:16:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.805-816
  10. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Why are coauthored academic articles more cited : higher quality or larger audience? (2023) 0.02 
    0.019536663 = product of:
  0.039073326 = sum of:
    0.023104034 = weight(_text_:technology in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023104034 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.01596929 = product of:
      0.03193858 = sum of:
        0.03193858 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03193858 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16509943 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:11:50
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.791-810
  11. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Academic collaboration rates and citation associations vary substantially between countries and fields (2020) 0.02 
    0.018949486 = product of:
  0.037898973 = sum of:
    0.023104034 = weight(_text_:technology in 5952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023104034 = score(doc=5952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 5952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5952)
    0.014794939 = product of:
      0.029589878 = sum of:
        0.029589878 = weight(_text_:management in 5952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029589878 = score(doc=5952,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15891297 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 5952, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  12. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.02 
    0.015382115 = product of:
  0.06152846 = sum of:
    0.06152846 = sum of:
      0.029589878 = weight(_text_:management in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029589878 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15891297 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04714662 = queryNorm
          0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.03193858 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03193858 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16509943 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04714662 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.6, S.614-635
  13. Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017) 0.02 
    0.015382115 = product of:
  0.06152846 = sum of:
    0.06152846 = sum of:
      0.029589878 = weight(_text_:management in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029589878 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15891297 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04714662 = queryNorm
          0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
      0.03193858 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03193858 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16509943 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04714662 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.2, S.174-183
  14. Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020) 0.02 
    0.015382115 = product of:
  0.06152846 = sum of:
    0.06152846 = sum of:
      0.029589878 = weight(_text_:management in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029589878 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15891297 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04714662 = queryNorm
          0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
      0.03193858 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03193858 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16509943 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04714662 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 72(2020) no.6, S.945-962
  15. Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.: Scholars on soap boxes : science communication and dissemination in TED videos (2013) 0.01 
    0.011552017 = product of:
  0.04620807 = sum of:
    0.04620807 = weight(_text_:technology in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04620807 = score(doc=678,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.32906836 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Online videos provide a novel, and often interactive, platform for the popularization of science. One successful collection is hosted on the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) website. This study uses a range of bibliometric (citation) and webometric (usage and bookmarking) indicators to examine TED videos in order to provide insights into the type and scope of their impact. The results suggest that TED Talks impact primarily the public sphere, with about three-quarters of a billion total views, rather than the academic realm. Differences were found among broad disciplinary areas, with art and design videos having generally lower levels of impact but science and technology videos generating otherwise average impact for TED. Many of the metrics were only loosely related, but there was a general consensus about the most popular videos as measured through views or comments on YouTube and the TED site. Moreover, most videos were found in at least one online syllabus and videos in online syllabi tended to be more viewed, discussed, and blogged. Less-liked videos generated more discussion, although this may be because they are more controversial. Science and technology videos presented by academics were more liked than those by nonacademics, showing that academics are not disadvantaged in this new media environment.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.663-674
  16. Orduna-Malea, E.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Web citations in patents : evidence of technological impact? (2017) 0.01 
    0.009802213 = product of:
  0.03920885 = sum of:
    0.03920885 = weight(_text_:technology in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03920885 = score(doc=3764,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.2792238 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  17. Thelwall, M.; Vaughan, L.: Webometrics : an introduction to the special issue (2004) 0.01 
    0.0092416145 = product of:
  0.036966458 = sum of:
    0.036966458 = weight(_text_:technology in 2908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036966458 = score(doc=2908,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 2908, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2908)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.14, S.1213-1215
  18. Barjak, F.; Thelwall, M.: ¬A statistical analysis of the web presences of European life sciences research teams (2008) 0.01 
    0.008168511 = product of:
  0.032674044 = sum of:
    0.032674044 = weight(_text_:technology in 1383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032674044 = score(doc=1383,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 1383, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1383)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Web links have been used for around ten years to explore the online impact of academic information and information producers. Nevertheless, few studies have attempted to relate link counts to relevant offline attributes of the owners of the targeted Web sites, with the exception of research productivity. This article reports the results of a study to relate site inlink counts to relevant owner characteristics for over 400 European life-science research group Web sites. The analysis confirmed that research-group size and Web-presence size were important for attracting Web links, although research productivity was not. Little evidence was found for significant influence of any of an array of factors, including research-group leader gender and industry connections. In addition, the choice of search engine for link data created a surprising international difference in the results, with Google perhaps giving unreliable results. Overall, the data collection, statistical analysis and results interpretation were all complex and it seems that we still need to know more about search engines, hyperlinks, and their function in science before we can draw conclusions on their usefulness and role in the canon of science and technology indicators.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.4, S.628-643
  19. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Rezaie, S.: Can the impact of scholarly images be assessed online? : an exploratory study using image identification technology (2010) 0.01 
    0.008168511 = product of:
  0.032674044 = sum of:
    0.032674044 = weight(_text_:technology in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032674044 = score(doc=3966,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.9, S.1734-1744
  20. Mohammadi, E.; Thelwall, M.; Haustein, S.; Larivière, V.: Who reads research articles? : an altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories (2015) 0.01 
    0.008168511 = product of:
  0.032674044 = sum of:
    0.032674044 = weight(_text_:technology in 2162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032674044 = score(doc=2162,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 2162, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2162)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Little detailed information is known about who reads research articles and the contexts in which research articles are read. Using data about people who register in Mendeley as readers of articles, this article explores different types of users of Clinical Medicine, Engineering and Technology, Social Science, Physics, and Chemistry articles inside and outside academia. The majority of readers for all disciplines were PhD students, postgraduates, and postdocs but other types of academics were also represented. In addition, many Clinical Medicine articles were read by medical professionals. The highest correlations between citations and Mendeley readership counts were found for types of users who often authored academic articles, except for associate professors in some sub-disciplines. This suggests that Mendeley readership can reflect usage similar to traditional citation impact if the data are restricted to readers who are also authors without the delay of impact measured by citation counts. At the same time, Mendeley statistics can also reveal the hidden impact of some research articles, such as educational value for nonauthor users inside academia or the impact of research articles on practice for readers outside academia.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.9, S.1832-1846

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 98
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Themes