-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.03
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.
-
Thelwall, M.: Web indicators for research evaluation : a practical guide (2016)
0.02
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
-
Thelwall, M.: Extracting macroscopic information from Web links (2001)
0.01
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
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology (2013)
0.01
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.
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ResearchGate articles : age, discipline, audience size, and impact (2017)
0.01
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.
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
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
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.01
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
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.01
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
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.01
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
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.01
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
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.01
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
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.01
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
-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.01
0.0056670653 = product of:
0.017001195 = sum of:
0.017001195 = product of:
0.03400239 = sum of:
0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03400239 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
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)
0.01
0.0056670653 = product of:
0.017001195 = sum of:
0.017001195 = product of:
0.03400239 = sum of:
0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03400239 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
