-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.07
0.071903065 = product of:
0.14380613 = sum of:
0.14380613 = sum of:
0.1025501 = weight(_text_:assessment in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1025501 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.36599535 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
0.041256037 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041256037 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = 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)
- 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Why are coauthored academic articles more cited : higher quality or larger audience? (2023)
0.06
0.059919223 = product of:
0.11983845 = sum of:
0.11983845 = sum of:
0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08545842 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03438003 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = 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
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Rezaie, S.: Assessing the citation impact of books : the role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus (2011)
0.03
0.030214114 = product of:
0.06042823 = sum of:
0.06042823 = product of:
0.12085646 = sum of:
0.12085646 = weight(_text_:assessment in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12085646 = score(doc=4920,freq=4.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.43132967 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Do altmetric scores reflect article quality? : evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 (2023)
0.03
0.030214114 = product of:
0.06042823 = sum of:
0.06042823 = product of:
0.12085646 = sum of:
0.12085646 = weight(_text_:assessment in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12085646 = score(doc=947,freq=4.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.43132967 = fieldWeight in 947, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=947)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
-
Thelwall, M.; Stuart, D.: Web crawling ethics revisited : cost, privacy, and denial of service (2006)
0.03
0.029910447 = product of:
0.059820894 = sum of:
0.059820894 = product of:
0.11964179 = sum of:
0.11964179 = weight(_text_:assessment in 6098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11964179 = score(doc=6098,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.4269946 = fieldWeight in 6098, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6098)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Ethical aspects of the employment of Web crawlers for information science research and other contexts are reviewed. The difference between legal and ethical uses of communications technologies is emphasized as well as the changing boundary between ethical and unethical conduct. A review of the potential impacts on Web site owners is used to underpin a new framework for ethical crawling, and it is argued that delicate human judgment is required for each individual case, with verdicts likely to change over time. Decisions can be based upon an approximate cost-benefit analysis, but it is crucial that crawler owners find out about the technological issues affecting the owners of the sites being crawled in order to produce an informed assessment.
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Online presentations as a source of scientific impact? : an analysis of PowerPoint files citing academic journals (2008)
0.02
0.021364605 = product of:
0.04272921 = sum of:
0.04272921 = product of:
0.08545842 = sum of:
0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08545842 = score(doc=1614,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 1614, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1614)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Open-access online publication has made available an increasingly wide range of document types for scientometric analysis. In this article, we focus on citations in online presentations, seeking evidence of their value as nontraditional indicators of research impact. For this purpose, we searched for online PowerPoint files mentioning any one of 1,807 ISI-indexed journals in ten science and ten social science disciplines. We also manually classified 1,378 online PowerPoint citations to journals in eight additional science and social science disciplines. The results showed that very few journals were cited frequently enough in online PowerPoint files to make impact assessment worthwhile, with the main exceptions being popular magazines like Scientific American and Harvard Business Review. Surprisingly, however, there was little difference overall in the number of PowerPoint citations to science and to the social sciences, and also in the proportion representing traditional impact (about 60%) and wider impact (about 15%). It seems that the main scientometric value for online presentations may be in tracking the popularization of research, or for comparing the impact of whole journals rather than individual articles.
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: ¬An automatic method for extracting citations from Google Books (2015)
0.02
0.021364605 = product of:
0.04272921 = sum of:
0.04272921 = product of:
0.08545842 = sum of:
0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08545842 = score(doc=1658,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 1658, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1658)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Recent studies have shown that counting citations from books can help scholarly impact assessment and that Google Books (GB) is a useful source of such citation counts, despite its lack of a public citation index. Searching GB for citations produces approximate matches, however, and so its raw results need time-consuming human filtering. In response, this article introduces a method to automatically remove false and irrelevant matches from GB citation searches in addition to introducing refinements to a previous GB manual citation extraction method. The method was evaluated by manual checking of sampled GB results and comparing citations to about 14,500 monographs in the Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index (BKCI) against automatically extracted citations from GB across 24 subject areas. GB citations were 103% to 137% as numerous as BKCI citations in the humanities, except for tourism (72%) and linguistics (91%), 46% to 85% in social sciences, but only 8% to 53% in the sciences. In all cases, however, GB had substantially more citing books than did BKCI, with BKCI's results coming predominantly from journal articles. Moderate correlations between the GB and BKCI citation counts in social sciences and humanities, with most BKCI results coming from journal articles rather than books, suggests that they could measure the different aspects of impact, however.
-
Thelwall, M.: Web indicators for research evaluation : a practical guide (2016)
0.02
0.021364605 = product of:
0.04272921 = sum of:
0.04272921 = product of:
0.08545842 = sum of:
0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08545842 = score(doc=3384,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, 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.
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Abdoli, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: In which fields are citations indicators of research quality? (2023)
0.02
0.021364605 = product of:
0.04272921 = sum of:
0.04272921 = product of:
0.08545842 = sum of:
0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08545842 = score(doc=1033,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 1033, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1033)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Citation counts are widely used as indicators of research quality to support or replace human peer review and for lists of top cited papers, researchers, and institutions. Nevertheless, the relationship between citations and research quality is poorly evidenced. We report the first large-scale science-wide academic evaluation of the relationship between research quality and citations (field normalized citation counts), correlating them for 87,739 journal articles in 34 field-based UK Units of Assessment (UoA). The two correlate positively in all academic fields, from very weak (0.1) to strong (0.5), reflecting broadly linear relationships in all fields. We give the first evidence that the correlations are positive even across the arts and humanities. The patterns are similar for the field classification schemes of Scopus and Dimensions.ai, although varying for some individual subjects and therefore more uncertain for these. We also show for the first time that no field has a citation threshold beyond which all articles are excellent quality, so lists of top cited articles are not pure collections of excellence, and neither is any top citation percentile indicator. Thus, while appropriately field normalized citations associate positively with research quality in all fields, they never perfectly reflect it, even at high values.
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
0.0137520125 = product of:
0.027504025 = sum of:
0.027504025 = product of:
0.05500805 = sum of:
0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05500805 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = 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
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.01
0.012155176 = product of:
0.024310352 = sum of:
0.024310352 = product of:
0.048620705 = sum of:
0.048620705 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048620705 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = 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)
0.5 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011)
0.01
0.010314009 = product of:
0.020628018 = sum of:
0.020628018 = product of:
0.041256037 = sum of:
0.041256037 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041256037 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:27:06
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.01
0.010314009 = product of:
0.020628018 = sum of:
0.020628018 = product of:
0.041256037 = sum of:
0.041256037 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041256037 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.01
0.010314009 = product of:
0.020628018 = sum of:
0.020628018 = product of:
0.041256037 = sum of:
0.041256037 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041256037 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.01
0.0085950075 = product of:
0.017190015 = sum of:
0.017190015 = product of:
0.03438003 = sum of:
0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03438003 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = 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)
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.
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.01
0.0085950075 = product of:
0.017190015 = sum of:
0.017190015 = product of:
0.03438003 = sum of:
0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03438003 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:29:23
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.01
0.0085950075 = product of:
0.017190015 = sum of:
0.017190015 = product of:
0.03438003 = sum of:
0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03438003 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, 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=57)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 6. 4.2012 18:16:22
-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.01
0.0085950075 = product of:
0.017190015 = sum of:
0.017190015 = product of:
0.03438003 = sum of:
0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03438003 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.01
0.0085950075 = product of:
0.017190015 = sum of:
0.017190015 = product of:
0.03438003 = sum of:
0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03438003 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.01
0.0085950075 = product of:
0.017190015 = sum of:
0.017190015 = product of:
0.03438003 = sum of:
0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03438003 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
