Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019725805 = product of:
  0.049314514 = sum of:
    0.031211983 = weight(_text_:study in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031211983 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.21553972 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
    0.018102532 = product of:
      0.036205065 = sum of:
        0.036205065 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036205065 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The microblogging site Twitter generates a constant stream of communication, some of which concerns events of general interest. An analysis of Twitter may, therefore, give insights into why particular events resonate with the population. This article reports a study of a month of English Twitter posts, assessing whether popular events are typically associated with increases in sentiment strength, as seems intuitively likely. Using the top 30 events, determined by a measure of relative increase in (general) term usage, the results give strong evidence that popular events are normally associated with increases in negative sentiment strength and some evidence that peaks of interest in events have stronger positive sentiment than the time before the peak. It seems that many positive events, such as the Oscars, are capable of generating increased negative sentiment in reaction to them. Nevertheless, the surprisingly small average change in sentiment associated with popular events (typically 1% and only 6% for Tiger Woods' confessions) is consistent with events affording posters opportunities to satisfy pre-existing personal goals more often than eliciting instinctive reactions.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:27:06

0.019725805 = product of:
  0.049314514 = sum of:
    0.031211983 = weight(_text_:study in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031211983 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.21553972 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
    0.018102532 = product of:
      0.036205065 = sum of:
        0.036205065 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036205065 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Counts of tweets and Mendeley user libraries have been proposed as altmetric alternatives to citation counts for the impact assessment of articles. Although both have been investigated to discover whether they correlate with article citations, it is not known whether users tend to tweet or save (in Mendeley) the same kinds of articles that they cite. In response, this article compares pairs of articles that are tweeted, saved to a Mendeley library, or cited by the same user, but possibly a different user for each source. The study analyzes 1,131,318 articles published in 2012, with minimum tweeted (10), saved to Mendeley (100), and cited (10) thresholds. The results show surprisingly minor overall overlaps between the three phenomena. The importance of journals for Twitter and the presence of many bots at different levels of activity suggest that this site has little value for impact altmetrics. The moderate differences between patterns of saving and citation suggest that Mendeley can be used for some types of impact assessments, but sensitivity is needed for underlying differences.

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

0.01893761 = product of:
  0.047344025 = sum of:
    0.026009986 = weight(_text_:study in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026009986 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.17961644 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.021334039 = product of:
      0.042668078 = sum of:
        0.042668078 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042668078 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.

Date

22. 3.2009 12:43:51

0.016438173 = product of:
  0.041095432 = sum of:
    0.026009986 = weight(_text_:study in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026009986 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.17961644 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.015085445 = product of:
      0.03017089 = sum of:
        0.03017089 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03017089 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22