-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Abdoli, M.: ¬The role of online videos in research communication : a content analysis of YouTube videos cited in academic publications (2012)
0.01
0.009322119 = product of:
0.05593271 = sum of:
0.05593271 = product of:
0.11186542 = sum of:
0.11186542 = weight(_text_:lectures in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11186542 = score(doc=382,freq=2.0), product of:
0.26750946 = queryWeight, product of:
7.5697527 = idf(docFreq=61, maxDocs=44218)
0.03533926 = queryNorm
0.4181737 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.5697527 = idf(docFreq=61, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Although there is some evidence that online videos are increasingly used by academics for informal scholarly communication and teaching, the extent to which they are used in published academic research is unknown. This article explores the extent to which YouTube videos are cited in academic publications and whether there are significant broad disciplinary differences in this practice. To investigate, we extracted the URL citations to YouTube videos from academic publications indexed by Scopus. A total of 1,808 Scopus publications cited at least one YouTube video, and there was a steady upward growth in citing online videos within scholarly publications from 2006 to 2011, with YouTube citations being most common within arts and humanities (0.3%) and the social sciences (0.2%). A content analysis of 551 YouTube videos cited by research articles indicated that in science (78%) and in medicine and health sciences (77%), over three fourths of the cited videos had either direct scientific (e.g., laboratory experiments) or scientific-related contents (e.g., academic lectures or education) whereas in the arts and humanities, about 80% of the YouTube videos had art, culture, or history themes, and in the social sciences, about 63% of the videos were related to news, politics, advertisements, and documentaries. This shows both the disciplinary differences and the wide variety of innovative research communication uses found for videos within the different subject areas.
-
Thelwall, M.: Web indicators for research evaluation : a practical guide (2016)
0.01
0.009322119 = product of:
0.05593271 = sum of:
0.05593271 = product of:
0.11186542 = sum of:
0.11186542 = weight(_text_:lectures in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11186542 = score(doc=3384,freq=2.0), product of:
0.26750946 = queryWeight, product of:
7.5697527 = idf(docFreq=61, maxDocs=44218)
0.03533926 = queryNorm
0.4181737 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.5697527 = idf(docFreq=61, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Series
- Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services; 52
-
Thelwall, M.: ¬A comparison of sources of links for academic Web impact factor calculations (2002)
0.01
0.006399976 = product of:
0.038399857 = sum of:
0.038399857 = product of:
0.07679971 = sum of:
0.07679971 = weight(_text_:addresses in 4474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07679971 = score(doc=4474,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20233937 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
0.03533926 = queryNorm
0.37955892 = fieldWeight in 4474, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4474)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- There has been much recent interest in extracting information from collections of Web links. One tool that has been used is Ingwersen's Web impact factor. It has been demonstrated that several versions of this metric can produce results that correlate with research ratings of British universities showing that, despite being a measure of a purely Internet phenomenon, the results are susceptible to a wider interpretation. This paper addresses the question of which is the best possible domain to count backlinks from, if research is the focus of interest. WIFs for British universities calculated from several different source domains are compared, primarily the .edu, .ac.uk and .uk domains, and the entire Web. The results show that all four areas produce WIFs that correlate strongly with research ratings, but that none produce incontestably superior figures. It was also found that the WIF was less able to differentiate in more homogeneous subsets of universities, although positive results are still possible.
-
Thelwall, M.: ¬A comparison of link and URL citation counting (2011)
0.01
0.0053333133 = product of:
0.03199988 = sum of:
0.03199988 = product of:
0.06399976 = sum of:
0.06399976 = weight(_text_:addresses in 4533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06399976 = score(doc=4533,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20233937 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
0.03533926 = queryNorm
0.31629908 = fieldWeight in 4533, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4533)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Purpose - Link analysis is an established topic within webometrics. It normally uses counts of links between sets of web sites or to sets of web sites. These link counts are derived from web crawlers or commercial search engines with the latter being the only alternative for some investigations. This paper compares link counts with URL citation counts in order to assess whether the latter could be a replacement for the former if the major search engines withdraw their advanced hyperlink search facilities. Design/methodology/approach - URL citation counts are compared with link counts for a variety of data sets used in previous webometric studies. Findings - The results show a high degree of correlation between the two but with URL citations being much less numerous, at least outside academia and business. Research limitations/implications - The results cover a small selection of 15 case studies and so the findings are only indicative. Significant differences between results indicate that the difference between link counts and URL citation counts will vary between webometric studies. Practical implications - Should link searches be withdrawn, then link analyses of less well linked non-academic, non-commercial sites would be seriously weakened, although citations based on e-mail addresses could help to make citations more numerous than links for some business and academic contexts. Originality/value - This is the first systematic study of the difference between link counts and URL citation counts in a variety of contexts and it shows that there are significant differences between the two.
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment strength detection for the social web (2012)
0.01
0.0053333133 = product of:
0.03199988 = sum of:
0.03199988 = product of:
0.06399976 = sum of:
0.06399976 = weight(_text_:addresses in 4972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06399976 = score(doc=4972,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20233937 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
0.03533926 = queryNorm
0.31629908 = fieldWeight in 4972, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4972)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Sentiment analysis is concerned with the automatic extraction of sentiment-related information from text. Although most sentiment analysis addresses commercial tasks, such as extracting opinions from product reviews, there is increasing interest in the affective dimension of the social web, and Twitter in particular. Most sentiment analysis algorithms are not ideally suited to this task because they exploit indirect indicators of sentiment that can reflect genre or topic instead. Hence, such algorithms used to process social web texts can identify spurious sentiment patterns caused by topics rather than affective phenomena. This article assesses an improved version of the algorithm SentiStrength for sentiment strength detection across the social web that primarily uses direct indications of sentiment. The results from six diverse social web data sets (MySpace, Twitter, YouTube, Digg, Runners World, BBC Forums) indicate that SentiStrength 2 is successful in the sense of performing better than a baseline approach for all data sets in both supervised and unsupervised cases. SentiStrength is not always better than machine-learning approaches that exploit indirect indicators of sentiment, however, and is particularly weaker for positive sentiment in news-related discussions. Overall, the results suggest that, even unsupervised, SentiStrength is robust enough to be applied to a wide variety of different social web contexts.
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.00
0.003191988 = product of:
0.019151928 = sum of:
0.019151928 = product of:
0.038303856 = sum of:
0.038303856 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038303856 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.123752065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03533926 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.00
0.0028213453 = product of:
0.016928071 = sum of:
0.016928071 = product of:
0.033856142 = sum of:
0.033856142 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033856142 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.123752065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03533926 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- 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)
0.00
0.0023939908 = product of:
0.0143639445 = sum of:
0.0143639445 = product of:
0.028727889 = sum of:
0.028727889 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028727889 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.123752065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03533926 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- 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)
0.00
0.0023939908 = product of:
0.0143639445 = sum of:
0.0143639445 = product of:
0.028727889 = sum of:
0.028727889 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028727889 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.123752065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03533926 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.00
0.0023939908 = product of:
0.0143639445 = sum of:
0.0143639445 = product of:
0.028727889 = sum of:
0.028727889 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028727889 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.123752065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03533926 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.00
0.0023939908 = product of:
0.0143639445 = sum of:
0.0143639445 = product of:
0.028727889 = sum of:
0.028727889 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028727889 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.123752065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03533926 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.00
0.0019949926 = product of:
0.011969955 = sum of:
0.011969955 = product of:
0.02393991 = sum of:
0.02393991 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02393991 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.123752065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03533926 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- 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)
0.00
0.0019949926 = product of:
0.011969955 = sum of:
0.011969955 = product of:
0.02393991 = sum of:
0.02393991 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02393991 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.123752065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03533926 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- 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)
0.00
0.0019949926 = product of:
0.011969955 = sum of:
0.011969955 = product of:
0.02393991 = sum of:
0.02393991 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02393991 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.123752065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03533926 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- 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)
0.00
0.0019949926 = product of:
0.011969955 = sum of:
0.011969955 = product of:
0.02393991 = sum of:
0.02393991 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02393991 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.123752065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03533926 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.00
0.0019949926 = product of:
0.011969955 = sum of:
0.011969955 = product of:
0.02393991 = sum of:
0.02393991 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02393991 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.123752065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03533926 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- 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)
0.00
0.0019949926 = product of:
0.011969955 = sum of:
0.011969955 = product of:
0.02393991 = sum of:
0.02393991 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02393991 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.123752065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03533926 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- 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)
0.00
0.0019949926 = product of:
0.011969955 = sum of:
0.011969955 = product of:
0.02393991 = sum of:
0.02393991 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02393991 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.123752065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03533926 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
