Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

0.055006143 = product of:
  0.16501842 = sum of:
    0.15172137 = weight(_text_:politics in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15172137 = score(doc=178,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.27611402 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.033448 = idf(docFreq=105, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039257277 = queryNorm
        0.5494881 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          7.033448 = idf(docFreq=105, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
    0.013297048 = product of:
      0.026594097 = sum of:
        0.026594097 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026594097 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1374723 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039257277 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.017880535 = product of:
  0.107283205 = sum of:
    0.107283205 = weight(_text_:politics in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107283205 = score(doc=4920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27611402 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.033448 = idf(docFreq=105, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039257277 = queryNorm
        0.38854676 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.033448 = idf(docFreq=105, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Citation indictors are increasingly used in some subject areas to support peer review in the evaluation of researchers and departments. Nevertheless, traditional journal-based citation indexes may be inadequate for the citation impact assessment of book-based disciplines. This article examines whether online citations from Google Books and Google Scholar can provide alternative sources of citation evidence. To investigate this, we compared the citation counts to 1,000 books submitted to the 2008 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) from Google Books and Google Scholar with Scopus citations across seven book-based disciplines (archaeology; law; politics and international studies; philosophy; sociology; history; and communication, cultural, and media studies). Google Books and Google Scholar citations to books were 1.4 and 3.2 times more common than were Scopus citations, and their medians were more than twice and three times as high as were Scopus median citations, respectively. This large number of citations is evidence that in book-oriented disciplines in the social sciences, arts, and humanities, online book citations may be sufficiently numerous to support peer review for research evaluation, at least in the United Kingdom.

0.017880535 = product of:
  0.107283205 = sum of:
    0.107283205 = weight(_text_:politics in 375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107283205 = score(doc=375,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27611402 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.033448 = idf(docFreq=105, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039257277 = queryNorm
        0.38854676 = fieldWeight in 375, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.033448 = idf(docFreq=105, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=375)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The worldwide span of the microblogging service Twitter provides an opportunity to make international comparisons of trending topics of interest, such as news stories. Previous international comparisons of news interests have tended to use surveys and may bypass topics not well covered in the mainstream media. This study uses 9 months of English-language Tweets from the United Kingdom, United States, India, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia. Based upon the top 50 trending keywords in each country from the 0.5 billion Tweets collected, festivals or religious events are the most common, followed by media events, politics, human interest, and sports. U.S. trending topics have the most interest in the other countries and Indian trending topics the least. Conversely, India is the most interested in other countries' trending topics and the United States the least. This gives evidence of an international hierarchy of perceived importance or relevance with some issues, such as the international interest in U.S. Thanksgiving celebrations, apparently not being directly driven by the media. This hierarchy echoes, and may be caused by, similar news coverage trends. Although the current imbalanced international news coverage does not seem to be out of step with public news interests, the political implication is that the Twitter-using public reflects, and hence seems to implicitly accept, international imbalances in news media agenda setting rather than combating them. This is an issue for those believing that these imbalances make the media too powerful.

0.017880535 = product of:
  0.107283205 = sum of:
    0.107283205 = weight(_text_:politics in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107283205 = score(doc=382,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27611402 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.033448 = idf(docFreq=105, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039257277 = queryNorm
        0.38854676 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.033448 = idf(docFreq=105, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
  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.

0.017880535 = product of:
  0.107283205 = sum of:
    0.107283205 = weight(_text_:politics in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107283205 = score(doc=3760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27611402 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.033448 = idf(docFreq=105, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039257277 = queryNorm
        0.38854676 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.033448 = idf(docFreq=105, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Although news stories target the general public and are sometimes inaccurate, they can serve as sources of real-world information for researchers. This article investigates the extent to which academics exploit journalism using content and citation analyses of online BBC News stories cited by Scopus articles. A total of 27,234 Scopus-indexed publications have cited at least one BBC News story, with a steady annual increase. Citations from the arts and humanities (2.8% of publications in 2015) and social sciences (1.5%) were more likely than citations from medicine (0.1%) and science (<0.1%). Surprisingly, half of the sampled Scopus-cited science and technology (53%) and medicine and health (47%) stories were based on academic research, rather than otherwise unpublished information, suggesting that researchers have chosen a lower-quality secondary source for their citations. Nevertheless, the BBC News stories that were most frequently cited by Scopus, Google Books, and Wikipedia introduced new information from many different topics, including politics, business, economics, statistics, and reports about events. Thus, news stories are mediating real-world knowledge into the academic domain, a potential cause for concern.

0.008608164 = product of:
  0.051648982 = sum of:
    0.051648982 = weight(_text_:1989 in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051648982 = score(doc=3766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19158144 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8801513 = idf(docFreq=912, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039257277 = queryNorm
        0.26959282 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8801513 = idf(docFreq=912, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.1989-2003

0.0035458799 = product of:
  0.021275278 = sum of:
    0.021275278 = product of:
      0.042550556 = sum of:
        0.042550556 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042550556 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1374723 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039257277 = 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

0.0031341442 = product of:
  0.018804865 = sum of:
    0.018804865 = product of:
      0.03760973 = sum of:
        0.03760973 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03760973 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1374723 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039257277 = 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

0.0026594098 = product of:
  0.015956458 = sum of:
    0.015956458 = product of:
      0.031912915 = sum of:
        0.031912915 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031912915 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1374723 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039257277 = 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

0.0026594098 = product of:
  0.015956458 = sum of:
    0.015956458 = product of:
      0.031912915 = sum of:
        0.031912915 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031912915 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1374723 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039257277 = 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

0.0026594098 = product of:
  0.015956458 = sum of:
    0.015956458 = product of:
      0.031912915 = sum of:
        0.031912915 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031912915 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1374723 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039257277 = 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

0.0026594098 = product of:
  0.015956458 = sum of:
    0.015956458 = product of:
      0.031912915 = sum of:
        0.031912915 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031912915 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1374723 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039257277 = 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

0.0022161747 = product of:
  0.013297048 = sum of:
    0.013297048 = product of:
      0.026594097 = sum of:
        0.026594097 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026594097 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1374723 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039257277 = 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.

0.0022161747 = product of:
  0.013297048 = sum of:
    0.013297048 = product of:
      0.026594097 = sum of:
        0.026594097 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026594097 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1374723 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039257277 = 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

0.0022161747 = product of:
  0.013297048 = sum of:
    0.013297048 = product of:
      0.026594097 = sum of:
        0.026594097 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026594097 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1374723 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039257277 = 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

0.0022161747 = product of:
  0.013297048 = sum of:
    0.013297048 = product of:
      0.026594097 = sum of:
        0.026594097 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026594097 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1374723 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039257277 = 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

0.0022161747 = product of:
  0.013297048 = sum of:
    0.013297048 = product of:
      0.026594097 = sum of:
        0.026594097 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026594097 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1374723 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039257277 = 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

0.0022161747 = product of:
  0.013297048 = sum of:
    0.013297048 = product of:
      0.026594097 = sum of:
        0.026594097 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026594097 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1374723 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039257277 = 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