Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.047746565 = product of:
  0.09549313 = sum of:
    0.09549313 = sum of:
      0.07463435 = weight(_text_:media in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07463435 = score(doc=3809,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051318336 = queryNorm
          0.31049973 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.020858778 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020858778 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17970806 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051318336 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Footnote

Teil eines Special Issue: Social Media Metrics in Scholarly Communication: exploring tweets, blogs, likes and other altmetrics. Der Beitrag ist frei verfügbar.

0.045704022 = product of:
  0.091408044 = sum of:
    0.091408044 = product of:
      0.18281609 = sum of:
        0.18281609 = weight(_text_:media in 3781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18281609 = score(doc=3781,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.76056594 = fieldWeight in 3781, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Social media has become integrated into the fabric of the scholarly communication system in fundamental ways, principally through scholarly use of social media platforms and the promotion of new indicators on the basis of interactions with these platforms. Research and scholarship in this area has accelerated since the coining and subsequent advocacy for altmetrics-that is, research indicators based on social media activity. This review provides an extensive account of the state-of-the art in both scholarly use of social media and altmetrics. The review consists of 2 main parts: the first examines the use of social media in academia, reviewing the various functions these platforms have in the scholarly communication process and the factors that affect this use. The second part reviews empirical studies of altmetrics, discussing the various interpretations of altmetrics, data collection and methodological limitations, and differences according to platform. The review ends with a critical discussion of the implications of this transformation in the scholarly communication system.

0.026931353 = product of:
  0.053862706 = sum of:
    0.053862706 = product of:
      0.10772541 = sum of:
        0.10772541 = weight(_text_:media in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10772541 = score(doc=1229,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.44816777 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Data collected by social media platforms have been introduced as new sources for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation analysis. Data generated from social media activities can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This article aims to provide systematic evidence about how often Twitter is used to disseminate information about journal articles in the biomedical sciences. The analysis is based on 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science and published between 2010 and 2012. The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed and compared to citations to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter and how far tweets correlate with citation impact. With less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general but differs between journals and specialties. Correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework using the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media-based metrics.

0.018658588 = product of:
  0.037317175 = sum of:
    0.037317175 = product of:
      0.07463435 = sum of:
        0.07463435 = weight(_text_:media in 2502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07463435 = score(doc=2502,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.31049973 = fieldWeight in 2502, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2502)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This brief communication presents preliminary findings on automated Twitter accounts distributing links to scientific articles deposited on the preprint repository arXiv. It discusses the implication of the presence of such bots from the perspective of social media metrics (altmetrics), where mentions of scholarly documents on Twitter have been suggested as a means of measuring impact that is both broader and timelier than citations. Our results show that automated Twitter accounts create a considerable amount of tweets to scientific articles and that they behave differently than common social bots, which has critical implications for the use of raw tweet counts in research evaluation and assessment. We discuss some definitions of Twitter cyborgs and bots in scholarly communication and propose distinguishing between different levels of engagement-that is, differentiating between tweeting only bibliographic information to discussing or commenting on the content of a scientific work.

0.014749384 = product of:
  0.029498767 = sum of:
    0.029498767 = product of:
      0.058997534 = sum of:
        0.058997534 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058997534 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17970806 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35