Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03192856 = product of:
  0.06385712 = sum of:
    0.06385712 = sum of:
      0.028384786 = weight(_text_:science in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028384786 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.035472337 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035472337 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833664 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = 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

Social Science Research Network

0.010035537 = product of:
  0.020071074 = sum of:
    0.020071074 = product of:
      0.04014215 = sum of:
        0.04014215 = weight(_text_:science in 1234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04014215 = score(doc=1234,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 1234, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Academic social network sites Academia.edu and ResearchGate, and reference sharing sites Mendeley, Bibsonomy, Zotero, and CiteULike, give scholars the ability to publicize their research outputs and connect with each other. With millions of users, these are a significant addition to the scholarly communication and academic information-seeking eco-structure. There is thus a need to understand the role that they play and the changes, if any, that they can make to the dynamics of academic careers. This article investigates attributes of philosophy scholars on Academia.edu, introducing a median-based, time-normalizing method to adjust for time delays in joining the site. In comparison to students, faculty tend to attract more profile views but female philosophers did not attract more profile views than did males, suggesting that academic capital drives philosophy uses of the site more than does friendship and networking. Secondary analyses of law, history, and computer science confirmed the faculty advantage (in terms of higher profile views) except for females in law and females in computer science. There was also a female advantage for both faculty and students in law and computer science as well as for history students. Hence, Academia.edu overall seems to reflect a hybrid of scholarly norms (the faculty advantage) and a female advantage that is suggestive of general social networking norms. Finally, traditional bibliometric measures did not correlate with any Academia.edu metrics for philosophers, perhaps because more senior academics use the site less extensively or because of the range informal scholarly activities that cannot be measured by bibliometric methods.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.721-731

0.008691031 = product of:
  0.017382061 = sum of:
    0.017382061 = product of:
      0.034764122 = sum of:
        0.034764122 = weight(_text_:science in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034764122 = score(doc=3760,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although news stories target the general public and are sometimes inaccurate, they can serve as sources of real-world information for researchers. This article investigates the extent to which academics exploit journalism using content and citation analyses of online BBC News stories cited by Scopus articles. A total of 27,234 Scopus-indexed publications have cited at least one BBC News story, with a steady annual increase. Citations from the arts and humanities (2.8% of publications in 2015) and social sciences (1.5%) were more likely than citations from medicine (0.1%) and science (<0.1%). Surprisingly, half of the sampled Scopus-cited science and technology (53%) and medicine and health (47%) stories were based on academic research, rather than otherwise unpublished information, suggesting that researchers have chosen a lower-quality secondary source for their citations. Nevertheless, the BBC News stories that were most frequently cited by Scopus, Google Books, and Wikipedia introduced new information from many different topics, including politics, business, economics, statistics, and reports about events. Thus, news stories are mediating real-world knowledge into the academic domain, a potential cause for concern.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.2017-2028

0.008515436 = product of:
  0.017030872 = sum of:
    0.017030872 = product of:
      0.034061745 = sum of:
        0.034061745 = weight(_text_:science in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034061745 = score(doc=3764,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.0070961965 = product of:
  0.014192393 = sum of:
    0.014192393 = product of:
      0.028384786 = sum of:
        0.028384786 = weight(_text_:science in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028384786 = score(doc=382,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although there is some evidence that online videos are increasingly used by academics for informal scholarly communication and teaching, the extent to which they are used in published academic research is unknown. This article explores the extent to which YouTube videos are cited in academic publications and whether there are significant broad disciplinary differences in this practice. To investigate, we extracted the URL citations to YouTube videos from academic publications indexed by Scopus. A total of 1,808 Scopus publications cited at least one YouTube video, and there was a steady upward growth in citing online videos within scholarly publications from 2006 to 2011, with YouTube citations being most common within arts and humanities (0.3%) and the social sciences (0.2%). A content analysis of 551 YouTube videos cited by research articles indicated that in science (78%) and in medicine and health sciences (77%), over three fourths of the cited videos had either direct scientific (e.g., laboratory experiments) or scientific-related contents (e.g., academic lectures or education) whereas in the arts and humanities, about 80% of the YouTube videos had art, culture, or history themes, and in the social sciences, about 63% of the videos were related to news, politics, advertisements, and documentaries. This shows both the disciplinary differences and the wide variety of innovative research communication uses found for videos within the different subject areas.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.9, S.1710-1727

0.0070961965 = product of:
  0.014192393 = sum of:
    0.014192393 = product of:
      0.028384786 = sum of:
        0.028384786 = weight(_text_:science in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028384786 = score(doc=3317,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Citations from patents to scientific publications provide useful evidence about the commercial impact of academic research, but automatically searchable databases are needed to exploit this connection for large-scale patent citation evaluations. Google covers multiple different international patent office databases but does not index patent citations or allow automatic searches. In response, this article introduces a semiautomatic indirect method via Bing to extract and filter patent citations from Google to academic papers with an overall precision of 98%. The method was evaluated with 322,192 science and engineering Scopus articles from every second year for the period 1996-2012. Although manual Google Patent searches give more results, especially for articles with many patent citations, the difference is not large enough to be a major problem. Within Biomedical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Pharmacology & Pharmaceutics, 7% to 10% of Scopus articles had at least one patent citation but other fields had far fewer, so patent citation analysis is only relevant for a minority of publications. Low but positive correlations between Google Patent citations and Scopus citations across all fields suggest that traditional citation counts cannot substitute for patent citations when evaluating research.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.48-61

0.0070961965 = product of:
  0.014192393 = sum of:
    0.014192393 = product of:
      0.028384786 = sum of:
        0.028384786 = weight(_text_:science in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028384786 = score(doc=3766,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

SlideShare is a free social website that aims to help users distribute and find presentations. Owned by LinkedIn since 2012, it targets a professional audience but may give value to scholarship through creating a long-term record of the content of talks. This article tests this hypothesis by analyzing sets of general and scholarly related SlideShare documents using content and citation analysis and popularity statistics reported on the site. The results suggest that academics, students, and teachers are a minority of SlideShare uploaders, especially since 2010, with most documents not being directly related to scholarship or teaching. About two thirds of uploaded SlideShare documents are presentation slides, with the remainder often being files associated with presentations or video recordings of talks. SlideShare is therefore a presentation-centered site with a predominantly professional user base. Although a minority of the uploaded SlideShare documents are cited by, or cite, academic publications, probably too few articles are cited by SlideShare to consider extracting SlideShare citations for research evaluation. Nevertheless, scholars should consider SlideShare to be a potential source of academic and nonacademic information, particularly in library and information science, education, and business.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.1989-2003

0.006021322 = product of:
  0.012042644 = sum of:
    0.012042644 = product of:
      0.024085289 = sum of:
        0.024085289 = weight(_text_:science in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024085289 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 1813, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1813)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.5, S.876-889

0.006021322 = product of:
  0.012042644 = sum of:
    0.012042644 = product of:
      0.024085289 = sum of:
        0.024085289 = weight(_text_:science in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024085289 = score(doc=2768,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.566-581

0.0050177686 = product of:
  0.010035537 = sum of:
    0.010035537 = product of:
      0.020071074 = sum of:
        0.020071074 = weight(_text_:science in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020071074 = score(doc=3966,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.9, S.1734-1744

0.0050177686 = product of:
  0.010035537 = sum of:
    0.010035537 = product of:
      0.020071074 = sum of:
        0.020071074 = weight(_text_:science in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020071074 = score(doc=4920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2147-2164

0.0050177686 = product of:
  0.010035537 = sum of:
    0.010035537 = product of:
      0.020071074 = sum of:
        0.020071074 = weight(_text_:science in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020071074 = score(doc=1331,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1331, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1331)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.8, S.1615-1626

0.0050177686 = product of:
  0.010035537 = sum of:
    0.010035537 = product of:
      0.020071074 = sum of:
        0.020071074 = weight(_text_:science in 1658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020071074 = score(doc=1658,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1658, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1658)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.2, S.309-320

0.0050177686 = product of:
  0.010035537 = sum of:
    0.010035537 = product of:
      0.020071074 = sum of:
        0.020071074 = weight(_text_:science in 2897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020071074 = score(doc=2897,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 2897, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2897)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.5, S.1198-1209

0.0050177686 = product of:
  0.010035537 = sum of:
    0.010035537 = product of:
      0.020071074 = sum of:
        0.020071074 = weight(_text_:science in 3226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020071074 = score(doc=3226,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 3226, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.2993-3007

0.0050177686 = product of:
  0.010035537 = sum of:
    0.010035537 = product of:
      0.020071074 = sum of:
        0.020071074 = weight(_text_:science in 3349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020071074 = score(doc=3349,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 3349, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3349)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.2, S.468-479

0.0050177686 = product of:
  0.010035537 = sum of:
    0.010035537 = product of:
      0.020071074 = sum of:
        0.020071074 = weight(_text_:science in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020071074 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.3, S.762-779

0.0050177686 = product of:
  0.010035537 = sum of:
    0.010035537 = product of:
      0.020071074 = sum of:
        0.020071074 = weight(_text_:science in 3534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020071074 = score(doc=3534,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 3534, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3534)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.4, S.972-983

0.0050177686 = product of:
  0.010035537 = sum of:
    0.010035537 = product of:
      0.020071074 = sum of:
        0.020071074 = weight(_text_:science in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020071074 = score(doc=3768,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 3768, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3768)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.2004-2016