-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.02
0.023246197 = product of:
0.09298479 = sum of:
0.09298479 = sum of:
0.03575501 = weight(_text_:language in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03575501 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.21673335 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
0.028744178 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028744178 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14791684 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = 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)
0.028485604 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028485604 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14725003 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = 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)
0.25 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.00
0.0037980804 = product of:
0.0151923215 = sum of:
0.0151923215 = product of:
0.045576964 = sum of:
0.045576964 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045576964 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14725003 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.00
0.0033570607 = product of:
0.013428243 = sum of:
0.013428243 = product of:
0.040284727 = sum of:
0.040284727 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040284727 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14725003 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
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
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? : An analysis of mendeley readers (2015)
0.00
0.002979584 = product of:
0.011918336 = sum of:
0.011918336 = product of:
0.03575501 = sum of:
0.03575501 = weight(_text_:language in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03575501 = score(doc=1850,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.21673335 = fieldWeight in 1850, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1850)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- International collaboration tends to result in more highly cited research and, partly as a result of this, many research funding schemes are specifically international in scope. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether this citation advantage is the result of higher quality research or due to other factors, such as a larger audience for the publications. To test whether the apparent advantage of internationally collaborative research may be due to additional interest in articles from the countries of the authors, this article assesses the extent to which the national affiliations of the authors of articles affect the national affiliations of their Mendeley readers. Based on English-language Web of Science articles in 10 fields from science, medicine, social science, and the humanities, the results of statistical models comparing author and reader affiliations suggest that, in most fields, Mendeley users are disproportionately readers of articles authored from within their own country. In addition, there are several cases in which Mendeley users from certain countries tend to ignore articles from specific other countries, although it is not clear whether this reflects national biases or different national specialisms within a field. In conclusion, research funders should not incentivize international collaboration on the basis that it is, in general, higher quality because its higher impact may be primarily due to its larger audience. Moreover, authors should guard against national biases in their reading to select only the best and most relevant publications to inform their research.
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Do new research issues attract more citations? : a comparison between 25 Scopus subject categories (2021)
0.00
0.002979584 = product of:
0.011918336 = sum of:
0.011918336 = product of:
0.03575501 = sum of:
0.03575501 = weight(_text_:language in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03575501 = score(doc=157,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.21673335 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Finding new ways to help researchers and administrators understand academic fields is an important task for information scientists. Given the importance of interdisciplinary research, it is essential to be aware of disciplinary differences in aspects of scholarship, such as the significance of recent changes in a field. This paper identifies potential changes in 25 subject categories through a term comparison of words in article titles, keywords and abstracts in 1 year compared to the previous 4 years. The scholarly influence of new research issues is indirectly assessed with a citation analysis of articles matching each trending term. While topic-related words dominate the top terms, style, national focus, and language changes are also evident. Thus, as reflected in Scopus, fields evolve along multiple dimensions. Moreover, while articles exploiting new issues are usually more cited in some fields, such as Organic Chemistry, they are usually less cited in others, including History. The possible causes of new issues being less cited include externally driven temporary factors, such as disease outbreaks, and internally driven temporary decisions, such as a deliberate emphasis on a single topic (e.g., through a journal special issue).
-
Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? : Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals (2016)
0.00
0.0028744177 = product of:
0.011497671 = sum of:
0.011497671 = product of:
0.03449301 = sum of:
0.03449301 = weight(_text_:29 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03449301 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14791684 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 27.12.2015 11:29:37
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.00
0.0028485605 = product of:
0.011394242 = sum of:
0.011394242 = product of:
0.034182724 = sum of:
0.034182724 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034182724 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14725003 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.00
0.0028485605 = product of:
0.011394242 = sum of:
0.011394242 = product of:
0.034182724 = sum of:
0.034182724 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034182724 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14725003 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.00
0.0028485605 = product of:
0.011394242 = sum of:
0.011394242 = product of:
0.034182724 = sum of:
0.034182724 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034182724 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14725003 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
-
Vaughan, L.; Thelwall, M.: Scholarly use of the Web : what are the key inducers of links to journal Web sites? (2003)
0.00
0.0023953482 = product of:
0.009581393 = sum of:
0.009581393 = product of:
0.028744178 = sum of:
0.028744178 = weight(_text_:29 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028744178 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14791684 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.1, S.29-38
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Are wikipedia citations important evidence of the impact of scholarly articles and books? (2017)
0.00
0.0023953482 = product of:
0.009581393 = sum of:
0.009581393 = product of:
0.028744178 = sum of:
0.028744178 = weight(_text_:29 in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028744178 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14791684 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3440, 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=3440)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 16.11.2017 13:29:45
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.00
0.0023738004 = product of:
0.0094952015 = sum of:
0.0094952015 = product of:
0.028485604 = sum of:
0.028485604 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028485604 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14725003 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
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.
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.00
0.0023738004 = product of:
0.0094952015 = sum of:
0.0094952015 = product of:
0.028485604 = sum of:
0.028485604 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028485604 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14725003 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 6. 4.2012 18:16:22
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.00
0.0023738004 = product of:
0.0094952015 = sum of:
0.0094952015 = product of:
0.028485604 = sum of:
0.028485604 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028485604 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14725003 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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
0.0023738004 = product of:
0.0094952015 = sum of:
0.0094952015 = product of:
0.028485604 = sum of:
0.028485604 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028485604 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14725003 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
