Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

0.03339596 = product of:
  0.10018788 = sum of:
    0.10018788 = sum of:
      0.0661855 = weight(_text_:publishing in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0661855 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03400239 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.019978218 = product of:
  0.05993465 = sum of:
    0.05993465 = weight(_text_:electronic in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05993465 = score(doc=3384,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.30543008 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

LCSH

Electronic books

Subject

Electronic books

0.019574575 = product of:
  0.058723725 = sum of:
    0.058723725 = weight(_text_:electronic in 838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058723725 = score(doc=838,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.29925916 = fieldWeight in 838, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=838)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of LexiURL as a Web intelligence tool for collecting and analysing links to digital libraries, focusing specifically on the National electronic Library for Health (NeLH). Design/methodology/approach - The Web intelligence techniques in this study are a combination of link analysis (web structure mining), web server log file analysis (web usage mining), and text analysis (web content mining), utilizing the power of commercial search engines and drawing upon the information science fields of bibliometrics and webometrics. LexiURL is a computer program designed to calculate summary statistics for lists of links or URLs. Its output is a series of standard reports, for example listing and counting all of the different domain names in the data. Findings - Link data, when analysed together with user transaction log files (i.e. Web referring domains) can provide insights into who is using a digital library and when, and who could be using the digital library if they are "surfing" a particular part of the Web; in this case any site that is linked to or colinked with the NeLH. This study found that the NeLH was embedded in a multifaceted Web context, including many governmental, educational, commercial and organisational sites, with the most interesting being sites from the.edu domain, representing American Universities. Not many links directed to the NeLH were followed on September 25, 2005 (the date of the log file analysis and link extraction analysis), which means that users who access the digital library have been arriving at the site via only a few select links, bookmarks and search engine searches, or non-electronic sources. Originality/value - A number of studies concerning digital library users have been carried out using log file analysis as a research tool. Log files focus on real-time user transactions; while LexiURL can be used to extract links and colinks associated with a digital library's growing Web network. This Web network is not recognized often enough, and can be a useful indication of where potential users are surfing, even if they have not yet specifically visited the NeLH site.

0.015443282 = product of:
  0.046329845 = sum of:
    0.046329845 = product of:
      0.09265969 = sum of:
        0.09265969 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09265969 = score(doc=1969,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.37785465 = fieldWeight in 1969, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1969)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.014126732 = product of:
  0.042380195 = sum of:
    0.042380195 = weight(_text_:electronic in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042380195 = score(doc=6851,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.21597168 = fieldWeight in 6851, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6851)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.0132371 = product of:
  0.0397113 = sum of:
    0.0397113 = product of:
      0.0794226 = sum of:
        0.0794226 = weight(_text_:publishing in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0794226 = score(doc=737,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.32387543 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study investigates a range of metrics available when a nanoscience and nanotechnology article is published to see which metrics correlate more with the number of citations to the article. It also introduces the degree of internationality of journals and references as new metrics for this purpose. The journal impact factor; the impact of references; the internationality of authors, journals, and references; and the number of authors, institutions, and references were all calculated for papers published in nanoscience and nanotechnology journals in the Web of Science from 2007 to 2009. Using a zero-inflated negative binomial regression model on the data set, the impact factor of the publishing journal and the citation impact of the cited references were found to be the most effective determinants of citation counts in all four time periods. In the entire 2007 to 2009 period, apart from journal internationality and author numbers and internationality, all other predictor variables had significant effects on citation counts.

0.0132371 = product of:
  0.0397113 = sum of:
    0.0397113 = product of:
      0.0794226 = sum of:
        0.0794226 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0794226 = score(doc=3598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.32387543 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although gender differences are known to exist in the publishing industry and in reader preferences, there is little public systematic data about them. This article uses evidence from the book-based social website Goodreads to provide a large scale analysis of 50 major English book genres based on author genders. The results show gender differences in authorship in almost all categories and gender differences the level of interest in, and ratings of, books in a minority of categories. Perhaps surprisingly in this context, there is not a clear gender-based relationship between the success of an author and their prevalence within a genre. The unexpected almost universal authorship gender differences should give new impetus to investigations of the importance of gender in fiction and the success of minority genders in some genres should encourage publishers and librarians to take their work seriously, except perhaps for most male-authored chick-lit.

0.011030916 = product of:
  0.03309275 = sum of:
    0.03309275 = product of:
      0.0661855 = sum of:
        0.0661855 = weight(_text_:publishing in 6116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0661855 = score(doc=6116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 6116, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Broad issue scanning is the task of identifying important public debates arising in a given broad issue; really simple syndication (RSS) feeds are a natural information source for investigating broad issues. RSS, as originally conceived, is a method for publishing timely and concise information on the Internet, for example, about the main stories in a news site or the latest postings in a blog. RSS feeds are potentially a nonintrusive source of high-quality data about public opinion: Monitoring a large number may allow quantitative methods to extract information relevant to a given need. In this article we describe an RSS feed-based coword frequency method to identify bursts of discussion relevant to a given broad issue. A case study of public science concerns is used to demonstrate the method and assess the suitability of raw RSS feeds for broad issue scanning (i.e., without data cleansing). An attempt to identify genuine science concern debates from the corpus through investigating the top 1,000 "burst" words found only two genuine debates, however. The low success rate was mainly caused by a few pathological feeds that dominated the results and obscured any significant debates. The results point to the need to develop effective data cleansing procedures for RSS feeds, particularly if there is not a large quantity of discussion about the broad issue, and a range of potential techniques is suggested. Finally, the analysis confirmed that the time series information generated by real-time monitoring of RSS feeds could usefully illustrate the evolution of new debates relevant to a broad issue.

0.011030916 = product of:
  0.03309275 = sum of:
    0.03309275 = product of:
      0.0661855 = sum of:
        0.0661855 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0661855 = score(doc=3966,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The web contains a huge number of digital pictures. For scholars publishing such images it is important to know how well used their images are, but no method seems to have been developed for monitoring the value of academic images. In particular, can the impact of scientific or artistic images be assessed through identifying images copied or reused on the Internet? This article explores a case study of 260 NASA images to investigate whether the TinEye search engine could theoretically help to provide this information. The results show that the selected pictures had a median of 11 online copies each. However, a classification of 210 of these copies reveals that only 1.4% were explicitly used in academic publications, reflecting research impact, and the majority of the NASA pictures were used for informal scholarly (or educational) communication (37%). Additional analyses of world famous paintings and scientific images about pathology and molecular structures suggest that image contents are important for the type and extent of image use. Although it is reasonable to use statistics derived from TinEye for assessing image reuse value, the extent of its image indexing is not known.

0.011030916 = product of:
  0.03309275 = sum of:
    0.03309275 = product of:
      0.0661855 = sum of:
        0.0661855 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0661855 = score(doc=3349,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 3349, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3349)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The large multidisciplinary academic social website ResearchGate aims to help academics to connect with each other and to publicize their work. Despite its popularity, little is known about the age and discipline of the articles uploaded and viewed in the site and whether publication statistics from the site could be useful impact indicators. In response, this article assesses samples of ResearchGate articles uploaded at specific dates, comparing their views in the site to their Mendeley readers and Scopus-indexed citations. This analysis shows that ResearchGate is dominated by recent articles, which attract about three times as many views as older articles. ResearchGate has uneven coverage of scholarship, with the arts and humanities, health professions, and decision sciences poorly represented and some fields receiving twice as many views per article as others. View counts for uploaded articles have low to moderate positive correlations with both Scopus citations and Mendeley readers, which is consistent with them tending to reflect a wider audience than Scopus-publishing scholars. Hence, for articles uploaded to the site, view counts may give a genuinely new audience indicator.

0.0090673035 = product of:
  0.02720191 = sum of:
    0.02720191 = product of:
      0.05440382 = sum of:
        0.05440382 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05440382 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

0.00801444 = product of:
  0.024043318 = sum of:
    0.024043318 = product of:
      0.048086636 = sum of:
        0.048086636 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048086636 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.0068004774 = product of:
  0.020401431 = sum of:
    0.020401431 = product of:
      0.040802862 = sum of:
        0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040802862 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:27:06

0.0068004774 = product of:
  0.020401431 = sum of:
    0.020401431 = product of:
      0.040802862 = sum of:
        0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040802862 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

0.0068004774 = product of:
  0.020401431 = sum of:
    0.020401431 = product of:
      0.040802862 = sum of:
        0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040802862 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

0.0068004774 = product of:
  0.020401431 = sum of:
    0.020401431 = product of:
      0.040802862 = sum of:
        0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040802862 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

0.0056670653 = product of:
  0.017001195 = sum of:
    0.017001195 = product of:
      0.03400239 = sum of:
        0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03400239 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:29:23

0.0056670653 = product of:
  0.017001195 = sum of:
    0.017001195 = product of:
      0.03400239 = sum of:
        0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03400239 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

6. 4.2012 18:16:22

0.0056670653 = product of:
  0.017001195 = sum of:
    0.017001195 = product of:
      0.03400239 = sum of:
        0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03400239 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0056670653 = product of:
  0.017001195 = sum of:
    0.017001195 = product of:
      0.03400239 = sum of:
        0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03400239 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22