-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.02
0.020348884 = product of:
0.04069777 = sum of:
0.01802107 = weight(_text_:information in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01802107 = score(doc=2734,freq=10.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
0.022676697 = product of:
0.045353394 = sum of:
0.045353394 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045353394 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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(2/4)
- 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
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.434-442
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.02
0.019275293 = product of:
0.038550586 = sum of:
0.012894828 = weight(_text_:information in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012894828 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
0.025655756 = product of:
0.05131151 = sum of:
0.05131151 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05131151 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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(2/4)
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.401-406
-
Thelwall, M.: Directing students to new information types : a new role for Google in literature searches? (2005)
0.02
0.01797905 = product of:
0.0359581 = sum of:
0.011282975 = weight(_text_:information in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011282975 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
0.024675125 = product of:
0.04935025 = sum of:
0.04935025 = weight(_text_:services in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04935025 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Series
- Internet reference services quarterly. 10(2005) nos.3/4
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.02
0.016459422 = product of:
0.032918844 = sum of:
0.01367703 = weight(_text_:information in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01367703 = score(doc=2856,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
0.019241815 = product of:
0.03848363 = sum of:
0.03848363 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03848363 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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(2/4)
- Abstract
- This article introduces a new source of evidence of the value of medical-related research: citations from clinical guidelines. These give evidence that research findings have been used to inform the day-to-day practice of medical staff. To identify whether citations from guidelines can give different information from that of traditional citation counts, this article assesses the extent to which references in clinical guidelines tend to be highly cited in the academic literature and highly read in Mendeley. Using evidence from the United Kingdom, references associated with the UK's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines tended to be substantially more cited than comparable articles, unless they had been published in the most recent 3 years. Citation counts also seemed to be stronger indicators than Mendeley readership altmetrics. Hence, although presence in guidelines may be particularly useful to highlight the contributions of recently published articles, for older articles citation counts may already be sufficient to recognize their contributions to health in society.
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.960-966
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.02
0.016076691 = product of:
0.032153383 = sum of:
0.016118534 = weight(_text_:information in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016118534 = score(doc=586,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
0.016034847 = product of:
0.032069694 = sum of:
0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032069694 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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(2/4)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.11, S.1631-1644
-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.02
0.016076691 = product of:
0.032153383 = sum of:
0.016118534 = weight(_text_:information in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016118534 = score(doc=178,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
0.016034847 = product of:
0.032069694 = sum of:
0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032069694 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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(2/4)
- Abstract
- Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 72(2020) no.6, S.945-962
-
Thelwall, M.: Web indicators for research evaluation : a practical guide (2016)
0.01
0.014511306 = product of:
0.029022612 = sum of:
0.011397525 = weight(_text_:information in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011397525 = score(doc=3384,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
0.017625088 = product of:
0.035250176 = sum of:
0.035250176 = weight(_text_:services in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035250176 = score(doc=3384,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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.
- Series
- Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services; 52
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011)
0.01
0.014456468 = product of:
0.028912935 = sum of:
0.009671121 = weight(_text_:information in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009671121 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
0.019241815 = product of:
0.03848363 = sum of:
0.03848363 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03848363 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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(2/4)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:27:06
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.406-418
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.01
0.014456468 = product of:
0.028912935 = sum of:
0.009671121 = weight(_text_:information in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009671121 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
0.019241815 = product of:
0.03848363 = sum of:
0.03848363 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03848363 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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(2/4)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3036-3050
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.01
0.014456468 = product of:
0.028912935 = sum of:
0.009671121 = weight(_text_:information in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009671121 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
0.019241815 = product of:
0.03848363 = sum of:
0.03848363 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03848363 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.8, S.959-973
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.01
0.013716185 = product of:
0.02743237 = sum of:
0.011397525 = weight(_text_:information in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011397525 = score(doc=4200,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
0.016034847 = product of:
0.032069694 = sum of:
0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032069694 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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(2/4)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:29:23
- Footnote
- Vgl. auch das Erratum in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.419
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2544-2558
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.01
0.013716185 = product of:
0.02743237 = sum of:
0.011397525 = weight(_text_:information in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011397525 = score(doc=57,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
0.016034847 = product of:
0.032069694 = sum of:
0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032069694 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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(2/4)
- Abstract
- Webometric network analyses have been used to map the connectivity of groups of websites to identify clusters, important sites or overall structure. Such analyses have mainly been based upon hyperlink counts, the number of hyperlinks between a pair of websites, although some have used title mentions or URL citations instead. The ability to automatically gather hyperlink counts from Yahoo! ceased in April 2011 and the ability to manually gather such counts was due to cease by early 2012, creating a need for alternatives. This article assesses URL citations and title mentions as possible replacements for hyperlinks in both binary and weighted direct link and co-inlink network diagrams. It also assesses three different types of data for the network connections: hit count estimates, counts of matching URLs, and filtered counts of matching URLs. Results from analyses of U.S. library and information science departments and U.K. universities give evidence that metrics based upon URLs or titles can be appropriate replacements for metrics based upon hyperlinks for both binary and weighted networks, although filtered counts of matching URLs are necessary to give the best results for co-title mention and co-URL citation network diagrams.
- Date
- 6. 4.2012 18:16:22
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.805-816
-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.01
0.012047057 = product of:
0.024094114 = sum of:
0.008059267 = weight(_text_:information in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008059267 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
0.016034847 = product of:
0.032069694 = sum of:
0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032069694 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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(2/4)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.6, S.614-635
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.01
0.012047057 = product of:
0.024094114 = sum of:
0.008059267 = weight(_text_:information in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008059267 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
0.016034847 = product of:
0.032069694 = sum of:
0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032069694 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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(2/4)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.2, S.174-183
-
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
0.012047057 = product of:
0.024094114 = sum of:
0.008059267 = weight(_text_:information in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008059267 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
0.016034847 = product of:
0.032069694 = sum of:
0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032069694 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.791-810
-
Thelwall, M.; Wouters, P.; Fry, J.: Information-centered research for large-scale analyses of new information sources (2008)
0.01
0.0063073747 = product of:
0.025229499 = sum of:
0.025229499 = weight(_text_:information in 1969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025229499 = score(doc=1969,freq=10.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.3035872 = fieldWeight in 1969, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1969)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1523-1527
-
Thelwall, M.: Webometrics (2009)
0.01
0.005406321 = product of:
0.021625284 = sum of:
0.021625284 = weight(_text_:information in 3906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021625284 = score(doc=3906,freq=10.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 3906, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3906)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Webometrics is an information science field concerned with measuring aspects of the World Wide Web (WWW) for a variety of information science research goals. It came into existence about five years after the Web was formed and has since grown to become a significant aspect of information science, at least in terms of published research. Although some webometrics research has focused on the structure or evolution of the Web itself or the performance of commercial search engines, most has used data from the Web to shed light on information provision or online communication in various contexts. Most prominently, techniques have been developed to track, map, and assess Web-based informal scholarly communication, for example, in terms of the hyperlinks between academic Web sites or the online impact of digital repositories. In addition, a range of nonacademic issues and groups of Web users have also been analyzed.
- Source
- Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
-
Harries, G.; Wilkinson, D.; Price, L.; Fairclough, R.; Thelwall, M.: Hyperlinks as a data source for science mapping : making sense of it all (2005)
0.00
0.0048355605 = product of:
0.019342242 = sum of:
0.019342242 = weight(_text_:information in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019342242 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Journal of information science. 30(2005) no.5, S.436-
-
Thelwall, M.; Vaughan, L.: Webometrics : an introduction to the special issue (2004)
0.00
0.00455901 = product of:
0.01823604 = sum of:
0.01823604 = weight(_text_:information in 2908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01823604 = score(doc=2908,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 2908, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2908)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web phenomena, is a field encompassing contributions from information science, computer science, and statistical physics. Its methodology draws especially from bibliometrics. This special issue presents contributions that both push for ward the field and illustrate a wide range of webometric approaches.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.14, S.1213-1215
-
Thelwall, M.; Prabowo, R.; Fairclough, R.: Are raw RSS feeds suitable for broad issue scanning? : a science concern case study (2006)
0.00
0.0045052674 = product of:
0.01802107 = sum of:
0.01802107 = weight(_text_:information in 6116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01802107 = score(doc=6116,freq=10.0), product of:
0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.047340166 = queryNorm
0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 6116, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6116)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.12, S.1644-1654
