Search (83 results, page 1 of 5)

0.048802964 = product of:
  0.09760593 = sum of:
    0.09760593 = sum of:
      0.06219185 = weight(_text_:research in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06219185 = score(doc=2593,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.41698778 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)

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

Object

Research Papers in Economics
Social Science Research Network

0.045676924 = product of:
  0.09135385 = sum of:
    0.09135385 = sum of:
      0.04885695 = weight(_text_:research in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04885695 = score(doc=2856,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.3275791 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
      0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042496894 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)

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

0.0453986 = product of:
  0.0907972 = sum of:
    0.0907972 = sum of:
      0.040714126 = weight(_text_:research in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040714126 = score(doc=2734,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.2729826 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.05008307 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05008307 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)

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

0.041213352 = product of:
  0.082426704 = sum of:
    0.082426704 = sum of:
      0.047012623 = weight(_text_:research in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047012623 = score(doc=586,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.31521314 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)

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.

0.038064104 = product of:
  0.07612821 = sum of:
    0.07612821 = sum of:
      0.040714126 = weight(_text_:research in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040714126 = score(doc=3806,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.2729826 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)

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

0.035352234 = product of:
  0.07070447 = sum of:
    0.07070447 = sum of:
      0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028207572 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
      0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042496894 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)

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

0.029460195 = product of:
  0.05892039 = sum of:
    0.05892039 = sum of:
      0.023506312 = weight(_text_:research in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023506312 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)

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

0.029460195 = product of:
  0.05892039 = sum of:
    0.05892039 = sum of:
      0.023506312 = weight(_text_:research in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023506312 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)

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

0.018657554 = product of:
  0.037315108 = sum of:
    0.037315108 = product of:
      0.074630216 = sum of:
        0.074630216 = weight(_text_:research in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074630216 = score(doc=3574,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.5003853 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Despite over 10 years of research there is no agreement on the most suitable roles for Webometric indicators in support of research policy and almost no field-based Webometrics. This article partly fills these gaps by analyzing the potential of policy-relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields with the help of 4 case studies. Although Webometrics cannot provide robust indicators of knowledge flows or research impact, it can provide some evidence of networking and mutual awareness. The scope of Webometrics is also relatively wide, including not only research organizations and firms but also intermediary groups like professional associations, Web portals, and government agencies. Webometrics can, therefore, provide evidence about the research process to compliment peer review, bibliometric, and patent indicators: tracking the early, mainly prepublication development of new fields and research funding initiatives, assessing the role and impact of intermediary organizations and the need for new ones, and monitoring the extent of mutual awareness in particular research areas.

0.01662147 = product of:
  0.03324294 = sum of:
    0.03324294 = product of:
      0.06648588 = sum of:
        0.06648588 = weight(_text_:research in 1401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06648588 = score(doc=1401,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.44577867 = fieldWeight in 1401, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1401)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to claim that it is useful to assess the web connectivity of research groups, describe hyperlink-based techniques to achieve this and present brief details of European life sciences research groups as a case study. Design/methodology/approach - A commercial search engine was harnessed to deliver hyperlink data via its automatic query submission interface. A special purpose link analysis tool, LexiURL, then summarised and graphed the link data in appropriate ways. Findings - Webometrics can provide a wide range of descriptive information about the international connectivity of research groups. Research limitations/implications - Only one field was analysed, data was taken from only one search engine, and the results were not validated. Practical implications - Web connectivity seems to be particularly important for attracting overseas job applicants and to promote research achievements and capabilities, and hence we contend that it can be useful for national and international governments to use webometrics to ensure that the web is being used effectively by research groups. Originality/value - This is the first paper to make a case for the value of using a range of webometric techniques to evaluate the web presences of research groups within a field, and possibly the first "applied" webometrics study produced for an external contract.

0.016454415 = product of:
  0.03290883 = sum of:
    0.03290883 = product of:
      0.06581766 = sum of:
        0.06581766 = weight(_text_:research in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06581766 = score(doc=1676,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.44129837 = fieldWeight in 1676, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1676)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Results from recent advances in link metrics have demonstrated that the hyperlink structure of national university systems can be strongly related to the research productivity of the individual institutions. This paper uses a page categorization to show that restricting the metrics to subsets more closely related to the research of the host university can produce even stronger associations. A partial overlap was also found between the effects of applying advanced document models and separating page types, but the best results were achieved through a combination of the two.

0.016454415 = product of:
  0.03290883 = sum of:
    0.03290883 = product of:
      0.06581766 = sum of:
        0.06581766 = weight(_text_:research in 1969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06581766 = score(doc=1969,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.44129837 = fieldWeight in 1969, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1969)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

New mass publishing genres, such as blogs and personal home pages provide a rich source of social data that is yet to be fully exploited by the social sciences and humanities. Information-centered research (ICR) not only provides a genuinely new and useful information science research model for this type of data, but can also contribute to the emerging e-research infrastructure. Nevertheless, ICR should not be conducted on a purely abstract level, but should relate to potentially relevant problems.

0.015768511 = product of:
  0.031537022 = sum of:
    0.031537022 = product of:
      0.063074045 = sum of:
        0.063074045 = weight(_text_:research in 2313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063074045 = score(doc=2313,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.42290276 = fieldWeight in 2313, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2313)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to make an explicit case for the use of data with contextual information as evidence in arts and humanities research evaluations rather than systematic metrics. Design/methodology/approach A survey of the strengths and limitations of citation-based indicators is combined with evidence about existing uses of wider impact data in the arts and humanities, with particular reference to the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework. Findings Data are already used as impact evidence in the arts and humanities but this practice should become more widespread. Practical implications Arts and humanities researchers should be encouraged to think creatively about the kinds of data that they may be able to generate in support of the value of their research and should not rely upon standardised metrics. Originality/value This paper combines practices emerging in the arts and humanities with research evaluation from a scientometric perspective to generate new recommendations.

0.015547963 = product of:
  0.031095926 = sum of:
    0.031095926 = product of:
      0.06219185 = sum of:
        0.06219185 = weight(_text_:research in 2383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06219185 = score(doc=2383,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.41698778 = fieldWeight in 2383, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2383)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The impact of published academic research in the sciences and social sciences, when measured, is commonly estimated by counting citations from journal articles. The Web has now introduced new potential sources of quantitative data online that could be used to measure aspects of research impact. In this article we assess the extent to which citations from online syllabuses could be a valuable source of evidence about the educational utility of research. An analysis of online syllabus citations to 70,700 articles published in 2003 in the journals of 12 subjects indicates that online syllabus citations were sufficiently numerous to be a useful impact indictor in some social sciences, including political science and information and library science, but not in others, nor in any sciences. This result was consistent with current social science research having, in general, more educational value than current science research. Moreover, articles frequently cited in online syllabuses were not necessarily highly cited by other articles. Hence it seems that online syllabus citations provide a valuable additional source of evidence about the impact of journals, scholars, and research articles in some social sciences.

0.015547963 = product of:
  0.031095926 = sum of:
    0.031095926 = product of:
      0.06219185 = sum of:
        0.06219185 = weight(_text_:research in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06219185 = score(doc=3384,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.41698778 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In recent years there has been an increasing demand for research evaluation within universities and other research-based organisations. In parallel, there has been an increasing recognition that traditional citation-based indicators are not able to reflect the societal impacts of research and are slow to appear. This has led to the creation of new indicators for different types of research impact as well as timelier indicators, mainly derived from the Web. These indicators have been called altmetrics, webometrics or just web metrics. This book describes and evaluates a range of web indicators for aspects of societal or scholarly impact, discusses the theory and practice of using and evaluating web indicators for research assessment and outlines practical strategies for obtaining many web indicators. In addition to describing impact indicators for traditional scholarly outputs, such as journal articles and monographs, it also covers indicators for videos, datasets, software and other non-standard scholarly outputs. The book describes strategies to analyse web indicators for individual publications as well as to compare the impacts of groups of publications. The practical part of the book includes descriptions of how to use the free software Webometric Analyst to gather and analyse web data. This book is written for information science undergraduate and Master?s students that are learning about alternative indicators or scientometrics as well as Ph.D. students and other researchers and practitioners using indicators to help assess research impact or to study scholarly communication.

0.014866696 = product of:
  0.029733391 = sum of:
    0.029733391 = product of:
      0.059466783 = sum of:
        0.059466783 = weight(_text_:research in 3048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059466783 = score(doc=3048,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.39871657 = fieldWeight in 3048, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.014394616 = product of:
  0.028789232 = sum of:
    0.028789232 = product of:
      0.057578463 = sum of:
        0.057578463 = weight(_text_:research in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057578463 = score(doc=6851,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.38605565 = fieldWeight in 6851, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6851)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.014394616 = product of:
  0.028789232 = sum of:
    0.028789232 = product of:
      0.057578463 = sum of:
        0.057578463 = weight(_text_:research in 1383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057578463 = score(doc=1383,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.38605565 = fieldWeight in 1383, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1383)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.014394616 = product of:
  0.028789232 = sum of:
    0.028789232 = product of:
      0.057578463 = sum of:
        0.057578463 = weight(_text_:research in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057578463 = score(doc=1850,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.38605565 = fieldWeight in 1850, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1850)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0141656315 = product of:
  0.028331263 = sum of:
    0.028331263 = product of:
      0.056662526 = sum of:
        0.056662526 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056662526 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22