Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

0.04860654 = product of:
  0.17012289 = sum of:
    0.12209911 = weight(_text_:united in 375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12209911 = score(doc=375,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.53679353 = fieldWeight in 375, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=375)
    0.048023775 = product of:
      0.09604755 = sum of:
        0.09604755 = weight(_text_:states in 375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09604755 = score(doc=375,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.43020093 = fieldWeight in 375, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=375)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The worldwide span of the microblogging service Twitter provides an opportunity to make international comparisons of trending topics of interest, such as news stories. Previous international comparisons of news interests have tended to use surveys and may bypass topics not well covered in the mainstream media. This study uses 9 months of English-language Tweets from the United Kingdom, United States, India, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia. Based upon the top 50 trending keywords in each country from the 0.5 billion Tweets collected, festivals or religious events are the most common, followed by media events, politics, human interest, and sports. U.S. trending topics have the most interest in the other countries and Indian trending topics the least. Conversely, India is the most interested in other countries' trending topics and the United States the least. This gives evidence of an international hierarchy of perceived importance or relevance with some issues, such as the international interest in U.S. Thanksgiving celebrations, apparently not being directly driven by the media. This hierarchy echoes, and may be caused by, similar news coverage trends. Although the current imbalanced international news coverage does not seem to be out of step with public news interests, the political implication is that the Twitter-using public reflects, and hence seems to implicitly accept, international imbalances in news media agenda setting rather than combating them. This is an issue for those believing that these imbalances make the media too powerful.

0.036507633 = product of:
  0.12777671 = sum of:
    0.043183967 = weight(_text_:management in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043183967 = score(doc=5906,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = 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)
    0.084592745 = weight(_text_:united in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084592745 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

0.035754256 = product of:
  0.12513989 = sum of:
    0.025446396 = weight(_text_:management in 5952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025446396 = score(doc=5952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = 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)
    0.0996935 = weight(_text_:united in 5952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0996935 = score(doc=5952,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.43829006 = fieldWeight in 5952, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5952)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

0.029843397 = product of:
  0.10445189 = sum of:
    0.07049395 = weight(_text_:united in 4106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07049395 = score(doc=4106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 4106, 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=4106)
    0.033957936 = product of:
      0.06791587 = sum of:
        0.06791587 = weight(_text_:states in 4106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06791587 = score(doc=4106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 4106, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The uptake of social network sites (SNSs) has been highly trend-driven, with Friendster, MySpace, and Facebook being successively the most popular. Given that teens are often early adopters of communication technologies, it seems reasonable to assume that the typical user of any particular SNS would change over time, probably becoming older and covering different segments of the population. This article analyzes changes in MySpace self-reported member demographics and behavior from 2007 to 2010 using four large samples of members and focusing on the United States. The results indicate that despite its take-up rate declining, with only about 1 in 10 members being active a year after joining, the dominant (modal) age for active U.S. members remains midadolescence, but has shifted by about 2 years from 15 to 17, and the U.S. dominance of MySpace is shrinking. There also has been a dramatic increase in the median number of Friends for new U.S. members, from 12 to 96-probably due to MySpace's automated Friend Finder. Some factors show little change, however, including the female majority, the 5% minority gay membership, and the approximately 50% private profiles. In addition, there has been an increase in the proportion of Latino/Hispanic U.S. members, suggesting a shifting ethnic profile. Overall, MySpace has surprisingly stable membership demographics and is apparently maintaining its primary youth appeal, perhaps because of its music orientation.

0.028877849 = product of:
  0.10107247 = sum of:
    0.084592745 = weight(_text_:united in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084592745 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
    0.016479723 = product of:
      0.032959446 = sum of:
        0.032959446 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032959446 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This article introduces a new source of evidence of the value of medical-related research: citations from clinical guidelines. These give evidence that research findings have been used to inform the day-to-day practice of medical staff. To identify whether citations from guidelines can give different information from that of traditional citation counts, this article assesses the extent to which references in clinical guidelines tend to be highly cited in the academic literature and highly read in Mendeley. Using evidence from the United Kingdom, references associated with the UK's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines tended to be substantially more cited than comparable articles, unless they had been published in the most recent 3 years. Citation counts also seemed to be stronger indicators than Mendeley readership altmetrics. Hence, although presence in guidelines may be particularly useful to highlight the contributions of recently published articles, for older articles citation counts may already be sufficient to recognize their contributions to health in society.

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

0.023874719 = product of:
  0.08356151 = sum of:
    0.056395162 = weight(_text_:united in 3048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056395162 = score(doc=3048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.2479343 = fieldWeight in 3048, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3048)
    0.02716635 = product of:
      0.0543327 = sum of:
        0.0543327 = weight(_text_:states in 3048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0543327 = score(doc=3048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.24335839 = fieldWeight in 3048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

0.012915401 = product of:
  0.0904078 = sum of:
    0.0904078 = weight(_text_:industry in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0904078 = score(doc=3598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2351482 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.3844716 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Although gender differences are known to exist in the publishing industry and in reader preferences, there is little public systematic data about them. This article uses evidence from the book-based social website Goodreads to provide a large scale analysis of 50 major English book genres based on author genders. The results show gender differences in authorship in almost all categories and gender differences the level of interest in, and ratings of, books in a minority of categories. Perhaps surprisingly in this context, there is not a clear gender-based relationship between the success of an author and their prevalence within a genre. The unexpected almost universal authorship gender differences should give new impetus to investigations of the importance of gender in fiction and the success of minority genders in some genres should encourage publishers and librarians to take their work seriously, except perhaps for most male-authored chick-lit.

0.012084679 = product of:
  0.084592745 = sum of:
    0.084592745 = weight(_text_:united in 3463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084592745 = score(doc=3463,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 3463, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3463)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The nature of the contents of academic Web sites is of direct relevance to the new field of scientific Web intelligence, and for search engine and topic-specific crawler designers. We analyze word frequencies in national academic Webs using the Web sites of three Englishspeaking nations: Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Strong regularities were found in page size and word frequency distributions, but with significant anomalies. At least 26% of pages contain no words. High frequency words include university names and acronyms, Internet terminology, and computing product names: not always words in common usage away from the Web. A minority of low frequency words are spelling mistakes, with other common types including nonwords, proper names, foreign language terms or computer science variable names. Based upon these findings, recommendations for data cleansing and filtering are made, particularly for clustering applications.

0.011194143 = product of:
  0.0391795 = sum of:
    0.025446396 = weight(_text_:management in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025446396 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = 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)
    0.013733104 = product of:
      0.027466208 = sum of:
        0.027466208 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027466208 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.6, S.614-635

0.011194143 = product of:
  0.0391795 = sum of:
    0.025446396 = weight(_text_:management in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025446396 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = 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)
    0.013733104 = product of:
      0.027466208 = sum of:
        0.027466208 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027466208 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

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

0.011194143 = product of:
  0.0391795 = sum of:
    0.025446396 = weight(_text_:management in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025446396 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = 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)
    0.013733104 = product of:
      0.027466208 = sum of:
        0.027466208 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027466208 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

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

0.010762835 = product of:
  0.07533984 = sum of:
    0.07533984 = weight(_text_:industry in 1383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07533984 = score(doc=1383,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2351482 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.320393 = fieldWeight in 1383, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1383)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.010070565 = product of:
  0.07049395 = sum of:
    0.07049395 = weight(_text_:united in 2123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07049395 = score(doc=2123,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 2123, 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=2123)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.010070565 = product of:
  0.07049395 = sum of:
    0.07049395 = weight(_text_:united in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07049395 = score(doc=4920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.010070565 = product of:
  0.07049395 = sum of:
    0.07049395 = weight(_text_:united in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07049395 = score(doc=947,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.0050892793 = product of:
  0.035624955 = sum of:
    0.035624955 = weight(_text_:management in 1014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035624955 = score(doc=1014,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 1014, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1014)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.2, S.347-360

0.0050892793 = product of:
  0.035624955 = sum of:
    0.035624955 = weight(_text_:management in 1066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035624955 = score(doc=1066,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 1066, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1066)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.6, S.1495-1510

0.0043622395 = product of:
  0.030535674 = sum of:
    0.030535674 = weight(_text_:management in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030535674 = score(doc=2536,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Information processing and management. 40(2004) no.4, S.693-708

0.0043622395 = product of:
  0.030535674 = sum of:
    0.030535674 = weight(_text_:management in 2571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030535674 = score(doc=2571,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 2571, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2571)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Information processing and management. 40(2004) no.3, S.515-526

0.0043622395 = product of:
  0.030535674 = sum of:
    0.030535674 = weight(_text_:management in 2554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030535674 = score(doc=2554,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 2554, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2554)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this research is to investigate general patterns of tag usage and determines the usefulness of the tags used within university image groups to the wider Flickr community. There has been a significant rise in the use of Web 2.0 social network web sites and online applications in recent years. One of the most popular is Flickr, an online image management application. Design/methodology/approach - This study uses a webometric data collection, classification and informetric analysis. Findings - The results show that members of university image groups tend to tag in a manner that is of use to users of the system as a whole rather than merely for the tag creator. Originality/value - This paper gives a valuable insight into the tagging practices of image groups in Flickr.