Search (105 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  1. Vaughan, L.; Thelwall, M.: Search engine coverage bias : evidence and possible causes (2004) 0.03 
    0.029524421 = product of:
  0.059048843 = sum of:
    0.04717497 = weight(_text_:processing in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04717497 = score(doc=2536,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.175792 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043425296 = queryNorm
        0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
    0.01187387 = product of:
      0.03562161 = sum of:
        0.03562161 = weight(_text_:29 in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03562161 = score(doc=2536,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15275662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    14. 8.2004 10:30:29
    Source
    Information processing and management. 40(2004) no.4, S.693-708
  2. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010) 0.02 
    0.020660542 = product of:
  0.08264217 = sum of:
    0.08264217 = sum of:
      0.023539849 = weight(_text_:science in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023539849 = score(doc=4200,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043425296 = queryNorm
          0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
      0.029684676 = weight(_text_:29 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029684676 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15275662 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043425296 = queryNorm
          0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
      0.029417641 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029417641 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15206799 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043425296 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  3. Vaughan, L.; Thelwall, M.: ¬A modelling approach to uncover hyperlink patterns : the case of Canadian universities (2005) 0.01 
    0.013759367 = product of:
  0.05503747 = sum of:
    0.05503747 = weight(_text_:processing in 1014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05503747 = score(doc=1014,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.175792 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043425296 = queryNorm
        0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 1014, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1014)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.2, S.347-360
  4. Payne, N.; Thelwall, M.: Mathematical models for academic webs : linear relationship or non-linear power law? (2005) 0.01 
    0.013759367 = product of:
  0.05503747 = sum of:
    0.05503747 = weight(_text_:processing in 1066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05503747 = score(doc=1066,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.175792 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043425296 = queryNorm
        0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 1066, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1066)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.6, S.1495-1510
  5. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009) 0.01 
    0.0131371 = product of:
  0.0525484 = sum of:
    0.0525484 = product of:
      0.0788226 = sum of:
        0.037219774 = weight(_text_:science in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037219774 = score(doc=2734,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
        0.041602828 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041602828 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15206799 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  6. Thelwall, M.; Wilkinson, D.: Finding similar academic Web sites with links, bibliometric couplings and colinks (2004) 0.01 
    0.011793743 = product of:
  0.04717497 = sum of:
    0.04717497 = weight(_text_:processing in 2571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04717497 = score(doc=2571,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.175792 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043425296 = queryNorm
        0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 2571, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2571)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 40(2004) no.3, S.515-526
  7. Thelwall, M.: Directing students to new information types : a new role for Google in literature searches? (2005) 0.01 
    0.010810301 = product of:
  0.043241203 = sum of:
    0.043241203 = product of:
      0.064861804 = sum of:
        0.023303263 = weight(_text_:science in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023303263 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
        0.04155854 = weight(_text_:29 in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04155854 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15275662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Conducting a literature review is an important activity for postgraduates and many undergraduates. Librarians can play an important role, directing students to digital libraries, compiling online subject reSource lists, and educating about the need to evaluate the quality of online resources. In order to conduct an effective literature search in a new area, however, in some subjects it is necessary to gain basic topic knowledge, including specialist vocabularies. Google's link-based page ranking algorithm makes this search engine an ideal tool for finding specialist topic introductory material, particularly in computer science, and so librarians should be teaching this as part of a strategic literature review approach.
    Date
    3. 6.2007 16:37:29
  8. Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? : Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals (2016) 0.01 
    0.010644905 = product of:
  0.04257962 = sum of:
    0.04257962 = product of:
      0.06386943 = sum of:
        0.02824782 = weight(_text_:science in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02824782 = score(doc=2495,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
        0.03562161 = weight(_text_:29 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03562161 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15275662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In theory, articles can attract readers on the social reference sharing site Mendeley before they can attract citations, so Mendeley altmetrics could provide early indications of article impact. This article investigates the influence of time on the number of Mendeley readers of an article through a theoretical discussion and an investigation into the relationship between counts of readers of, and citations to, 4 general library and information science (LIS) journals. For this discipline, it takes about 7 years for articles to attract as many Scopus citations as Mendeley readers, and after this the Spearman correlation between readers and citers is stable at about 0.6 for all years. This suggests that Mendeley readership counts may be useful impact indicators for both newer and older articles. The lack of dates for individual Mendeley article readers and an unknown bias toward more recent articles mean that readership data should be normalized individually by year, however, before making any comparisons between articles published in different years.
    Date
    27.12.2015 11:29:37
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.1, S.191-199
  9. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.01 
    0.010591499 = product of:
  0.042365994 = sum of:
    0.042365994 = product of:
      0.06354899 = sum of:
        0.02824782 = weight(_text_:science in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02824782 = score(doc=3211,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
        0.035301168 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035301168 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15206799 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Scientists and managers using citation-based indicators to help evaluate research cannot evaluate recent articles because of the time needed for citations to accrue. Reading occurs before citing, however, and so it makes sense to count readers rather than citations for recent publications. To assess this, Mendeley readers and citations were obtained for articles from 2004 to late 2014 in five broad categories (agriculture, business, decision science, pharmacy, and the social sciences) and 50 subcategories. In these areas, citation counts tended to increase with every extra year since publication, and readership counts tended to increase faster initially but then stabilize after about 5 years. The correlation between citations and readers was also higher for longer time periods, stabilizing after about 5 years. Although there were substantial differences between broad fields and smaller differences between subfields, the results confirm the value of Mendeley reader counts as early scientific impact indicators.
    Date
    16.11.2016 11:07:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3036-3050
  10. Thelwall, M.; Prabowo, R.; Fairclough, R.: Are raw RSS feeds suitable for broad issue scanning? : a science concern case study (2006) 0.01 
    0.0104958415 = product of:
  0.041983366 = sum of:
    0.041983366 = product of:
      0.06297505 = sum of:
        0.033290375 = weight(_text_:science in 6116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033290375 = score(doc=6116,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 6116, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6116)
        0.029684676 = weight(_text_:29 in 6116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029684676 = score(doc=6116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15275662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 6116, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6116)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  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.
    Date
    21.10.2006 19:29:49
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.12, S.1644-1654
  11. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.; Oppenheim, C.: Variations between subjects in the extent to which the social sciences have become more interdisciplinary (2011) 0.01 
    0.0104958415 = product of:
  0.041983366 = sum of:
    0.041983366 = product of:
      0.06297505 = sum of:
        0.033290375 = weight(_text_:science in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033290375 = score(doc=4465,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
        0.029684676 = weight(_text_:29 in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029684676 = score(doc=4465,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15275662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Increasing interdisciplinarity has been a policy objective since the 1990s, promoted by many governments and funding agencies, but the question is: How deeply has this affected the social sciences? Although numerous articles have suggested that research has become more interdisciplinary, yet no study has compared the extent to which the interdisciplinarity of different social science subjects has changed. To address this gap, changes in the level of interdisciplinarity since 1980 are investigated for subjects with many articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), using the percentage of cross-disciplinary citing documents (PCDCD) to evaluate interdisciplinarity. For the 14 SSCI subjects investigated, the median level of interdisciplinarity, as measured using cross-disciplinary citations, declined from 1980 to 1990, but rose sharply between 1990 and 2000, confirming previous research. This increase was not fully matched by an increase in the percentage of articles that were assigned to more than one subject category. Nevertheless, although on average the social sciences have recently become more interdisciplinary, the extent of this change varies substantially from subject to subject. The SSCI subject with the largest increase in interdisciplinarity between 1990 and 2000 was Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) but there is evidence that the level of interdisciplinarity of IS&LS increased less quickly during the first decade of this century.
    Date
    4. 7.2011 19:39:29
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.6, S.1118-1129
  12. Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020) 0.01 
    0.0098503865 = product of:
  0.039401546 = sum of:
    0.039401546 = product of:
      0.05910232 = sum of:
        0.029684676 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029684676 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15275662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
        0.029417641 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029417641 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15206799 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  13. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.01 
    0.009707993 = product of:
  0.03883197 = sum of:
    0.03883197 = product of:
      0.058247954 = sum of:
        0.02883031 = weight(_text_:science in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02883031 = score(doc=586,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
        0.029417641 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029417641 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15206799 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  14. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? (2015) 0.01 
    0.009265972 = product of:
  0.03706389 = sum of:
    0.03706389 = product of:
      0.055595834 = sum of:
        0.019974224 = weight(_text_:science in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019974224 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 1813, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1813)
        0.03562161 = weight(_text_:29 in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03562161 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15275662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1813, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1813)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    26. 4.2015 19:29:49
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.5, S.876-889
  15. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011) 0.01 
    0.009212566 = product of:
  0.036850262 = sum of:
    0.036850262 = product of:
      0.05527539 = sum of:
        0.019974224 = weight(_text_:science in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019974224 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
        0.035301168 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035301168 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15206799 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  16. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.01 
    0.009212566 = product of:
  0.036850262 = sum of:
    0.036850262 = product of:
      0.05527539 = sum of:
        0.019974224 = weight(_text_:science in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019974224 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
        0.035301168 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035301168 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15206799 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    19. 3.2016 12:22:00
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.960-966
  17. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.01 
    0.009212566 = product of:
  0.036850262 = sum of:
    0.036850262 = product of:
      0.05527539 = sum of:
        0.019974224 = weight(_text_:science in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019974224 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
        0.035301168 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035301168 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15206799 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    28. 7.2018 10:00:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.8, S.959-973
  18. Vaughan, L.; Thelwall, M.: Scholarly use of the Web : what are the key inducers of links to journal Web sites? (2003) 0.01 
    0.008870754 = product of:
  0.035483018 = sum of:
    0.035483018 = product of:
      0.053224526 = sum of:
        0.023539849 = weight(_text_:science in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023539849 = score(doc=1236,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
        0.029684676 = weight(_text_:29 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029684676 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15275662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Web links have been studied by information scientists for at least six years but it is only in the past two that clear evidence has emerged to show that counts of links to scholarly Web spaces (universities and departments) can correlate significantly with research measures, giving some credence to their use for the investigation of scholarly communication. This paper reports an a study to investigate the factors that influence the creation of links to journal Web sites. An empirical approach is used: collecting data and testing for significant patterns. The specific questions addressed are whether site age and site content are inducers of links to a journal's Web site as measured by the ratio of link counts to Journal Impact Factors, two variables previously discovered to be related. A new methodology for data collection is also introduced that uses the Internet Archive to obtain an earliest known creation date for Web sites. The results show that both site age and site content are significant factors for the disciplines studied: library and information science, and law. Comparisons between the two fields also show disciplinary differences in Web site characteristics. Scholars and publishers should be particularly aware that richer content an a journal's Web site tends to generate links and thus the traffic to the site.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.1, S.29-38
  19. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.01 
    0.008826248 = product of:
  0.035304993 = sum of:
    0.035304993 = product of:
      0.05295749 = sum of:
        0.023539849 = weight(_text_:science in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023539849 = score(doc=57,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
        0.029417641 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029417641 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15206799 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  20. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.01 
    0.008826248 = product of:
  0.035304993 = sum of:
    0.035304993 = product of:
      0.05295749 = sum of:
        0.023539849 = weight(_text_:science in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023539849 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
        0.029417641 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029417641 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15206799 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Object
    Social Science Research Network

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 104
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 104
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications