Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024080986 = product of:
  0.060202464 = sum of:
    0.045269795 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045269795 = score(doc=1212,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 1212, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1212)
    0.014932672 = product of:
      0.029865343 = sum of:
        0.029865343 = weight(_text_:data in 1212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029865343 = score(doc=1212,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 1212, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1212)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

F1000 is a postpublication peer review service for biological and medical research. F1000 recommends important publications in the biomedical literature, and from this perspective F1000 could be an interesting tool for research evaluation. By linking the complete database of F1000 recommendations to the Web of Science bibliographic database, we are able to make a comprehensive comparison between F1000 recommendations and citations. We find that about 2% of the publications in the biomedical literature receive at least one F1000 recommendation. Recommended publications on average receive 1.30 recommendations, and more than 90% of the recommendations are given within half a year after a publication has appeared. There turns out to be a clear correlation between F1000 recommendations and citations. However, the correlation is relatively weak, at least weaker than the correlation between journal impact and citations. More research is needed to identify the main reasons for differences between recommendations and citations in assessing the impact of publications.

0.01108232 = product of:
  0.055411596 = sum of:
    0.055411596 = sum of:
      0.024887787 = weight(_text_:data in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024887787 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = queryNorm
          0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.030523809 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030523809 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the disciplinary orientation of scientific publications that were mentioned on different social media platforms, focussing on their differences and similarities with citation counts. Design/methodology/approach - Social media metrics and readership counts, associated with 500,216 publications and their citation data from the Web of Science database, were collected from Altmetric.com and Mendeley. Results are presented through descriptive statistical analyses together with science maps generated with VOSviewer. Findings - The results confirm Mendeley as the most prevalent social media source with similar characteristics to citations in their distribution across fields and their density in average values per publication. The humanities, natural sciences, and engineering disciplines have a much lower presence of social media metrics. Twitter has a stronger focus on general medicine and social sciences. Other sources (blog, Facebook, Google+, and news media mentions) are more prominent in regards to multidisciplinary journals. Originality/value - This paper reinforces the relevance of Mendeley as a social media source for analytical purposes from a disciplinary perspective, being particularly relevant for the social sciences (together with Twitter). Key implications for the use of social media metrics on the evaluation of research performance (e.g. the concentration of some social media metrics, such as blogs, news items, etc., around multidisciplinary journals) are identified.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.007544966 = product of:
  0.03772483 = sum of:
    0.03772483 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03772483 = score(doc=516,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 516, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=516)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study presents an analysis of the use of bibliographic references by individual scientists in three different research areas. The number and type of references that scientists include in their papers are analyzed, the relationship between the number of references and different impact-based indicators is studied from a multivariable perspective, and the referencing patterns of scientists are related to individual factors such as their age and scientific performance. Our results show inter-area differences in the number, type, and age of references. Within each area, the number of references per document increases with journal impact factor and paper length. Top-performance scientists use in their papers a higher number of references, which are more recent and more frequently covered by the Web of Science. Veteran researchers tend to rely more on older literature and non-Web of Science sources. The longer reference lists of top scientists can be explained by their tendency to publish in high impact factor journals, with stricter reference and reviewing requirements. Long reference lists suggest a broader knowledge on the current literature in a field, which is important to become a top scientist. From the perspective of the "handicap principle theory," the sustained use of a high number of references in an author's oeuvre is a costly behavior that may indicate a serious, comprehensive, and solid research capacity, but that only the best researchers can afford. Boosting papers' citations by artificially increasing the number of references does not seem a feasible strategy.

0.0024419045 = product of:
  0.012209523 = sum of:
    0.012209523 = product of:
      0.024419045 = sum of:
        0.024419045 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024419045 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22