Search (27 results, page 1 of 2)

0.028670028 = product of:
  0.04300504 = sum of:
    0.027579557 = weight(_text_:to in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027579557 = score(doc=2593,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.33310217 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.015425485 = product of:
      0.03085097 = sum of:
        0.03085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03085097 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.019885626 = product of:
  0.029828439 = sum of:
    0.014402954 = weight(_text_:to in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014402954 = score(doc=586,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.17395693 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.015425485 = product of:
      0.03085097 = sum of:
        0.03085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03085097 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

0.015827356 = product of:
  0.023741033 = sum of:
    0.008315549 = weight(_text_:to in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008315549 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.10043408 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.015425485 = product of:
      0.03085097 = sum of:
        0.03085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03085097 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50

0.009193186 = product of:
  0.027579557 = sum of:
    0.027579557 = weight(_text_:to in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027579557 = score(doc=1331,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.33310217 = fieldWeight in 1331, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1331)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Some curricula vitae (web CVs) of academics on the web, including homepages and publication lists, link to open-access (OA) articles, resources, abstracts in publishers' websites, or academic discussions, helping to disseminate research. To assess how common such practices are and whether they vary by discipline, gender, and country, the authors conducted a large-scale e-mail survey of astronomy and astrophysics, public health, environmental engineering, and philosophy across 15 European countries and analyzed hyperlinks from web CVs of academics. About 60% of the 2,154 survey responses reported having a web CV or something similar, and there were differences between disciplines, genders, and countries. A follow-up outlink analysis of 2,700 web CVs found that a third had at least one outlink to an OA target, typically a public eprint archive or an individual self-archived file. This proportion was considerably higher in astronomy (48%) and philosophy (37%) than in environmental engineering (29%) and public health (21%). There were also differences in linking to publishers' websites, resources, and discussions. Perhaps most important, however, the amount of linking to OA publications seems to be much lower than allowed by publishers and journals, suggesting that many opportunities for disseminating full-text research online are being missed, especially in disciplines without established repositories. Moreover, few academics seem to be exploiting their CVs to link to discussions, resources, or article abstracts, which seems to be another missed opportunity for publicizing research.

0.0087653585 = product of:
  0.026296074 = sum of:
    0.026296074 = weight(_text_:to in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026296074 = score(doc=2946,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.31760043 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%-5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.

0.0081475405 = product of:
  0.02444262 = sum of:
    0.02444262 = weight(_text_:to in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02444262 = score(doc=1813,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.29521468 = fieldWeight in 1813, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1813)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

ResearchGate is a social network site for academics to create their own profiles, list their publications, and interact with each other. Like Academia.edu, it provides a new way for scholars to disseminate their work and hence potentially changes the dynamics of informal scholarly communication. This article assesses whether ResearchGate usage and publication data broadly reflect existing academic hierarchies and whether individual countries are set to benefit or lose out from the site. The results show that rankings based on ResearchGate statistics correlate moderately well with other rankings of academic institutions, suggesting that ResearchGate use broadly reflects the traditional distribution of academic capital. Moreover, while Brazil, India, and some other countries seem to be disproportionately taking advantage of ResearchGate, academics in China, South Korea, and Russia may be missing opportunities to use ResearchGate to maximize the academic impact of their publications.

0.0081475405 = product of:
  0.02444262 = sum of:
    0.02444262 = weight(_text_:to in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02444262 = score(doc=3764,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.29521468 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Patents sometimes cite webpages either as general background to the problem being addressed or to identify prior publications that limit the scope of the patent granted. Counts of the number of patents citing an organization's website may therefore provide an indicator of its technological capacity or relevance. This article introduces methods to extract URL citations from patents and evaluates the usefulness of counts of patent web citations as a technology indicator. An analysis of patents citing 200 US universities or 177 UK universities found computer science and engineering departments to be frequently cited, as well as research-related webpages, such as Wikipedia, YouTube, or the Internet Archive. Overall, however, patent URL citations seem to be frequent enough to be useful for ranking major US and the top few UK universities if popular hosted subdomains are filtered out, but the hit count estimates on the first search engine results page should not be relied upon for accuracy.

0.007839975 = product of:
  0.023519924 = sum of:
    0.023519924 = weight(_text_:to in 1234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023519924 = score(doc=1234,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.28407046 = fieldWeight in 1234, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1234)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Academic social network sites Academia.edu and ResearchGate, and reference sharing sites Mendeley, Bibsonomy, Zotero, and CiteULike, give scholars the ability to publicize their research outputs and connect with each other. With millions of users, these are a significant addition to the scholarly communication and academic information-seeking eco-structure. There is thus a need to understand the role that they play and the changes, if any, that they can make to the dynamics of academic careers. This article investigates attributes of philosophy scholars on Academia.edu, introducing a median-based, time-normalizing method to adjust for time delays in joining the site. In comparison to students, faculty tend to attract more profile views but female philosophers did not attract more profile views than did males, suggesting that academic capital drives philosophy uses of the site more than does friendship and networking. Secondary analyses of law, history, and computer science confirmed the faculty advantage (in terms of higher profile views) except for females in law and females in computer science. There was also a female advantage for both faculty and students in law and computer science as well as for history students. Hence, Academia.edu overall seems to reflect a hybrid of scholarly norms (the faculty advantage) and a female advantage that is suggestive of general social networking norms. Finally, traditional bibliometric measures did not correlate with any Academia.edu metrics for philosophers, perhaps because more senior academics use the site less extensively or because of the range informal scholarly activities that cannot be measured by bibliometric methods.

0.007839975 = product of:
  0.023519924 = sum of:
    0.023519924 = weight(_text_:to in 2897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023519924 = score(doc=2897,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.28407046 = fieldWeight in 2897, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2897)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although Mendeley bookmarking counts appear to correlate moderately with conventional citation metrics, it is not known whether academic publications are bookmarked in Mendeley in order to be read or not. Without this information, it is not possible to give a confident interpretation of altmetrics derived from Mendeley. In response, a survey of 860 Mendeley users shows that it is reasonable to use Mendeley bookmarking counts as an indication of readership because most (55%) users with a Mendeley library had read or intended to read at least half of their bookmarked publications. This was true across all broad areas of scholarship except for the arts and humanities (42%). About 85% of the respondents also declared that they bookmarked articles in Mendeley to cite them in their publications, but some also bookmark articles for use in professional (50%), teaching (25%), and educational activities (13%). Of course, it is likely that most readers do not record articles in Mendeley and so these data do not represent all readers. In conclusion, Mendeley bookmark counts seem to be indicators of readership leading to a combination of scholarly impact and wider professional impact.

0.007839975 = product of:
  0.023519924 = sum of:
    0.023519924 = weight(_text_:to in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023519924 = score(doc=3440,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.28407046 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Individual academics and research evaluators often need to assess the value of published research. Although citation counts are a recognized indicator of scholarly impact, alternative data is needed to provide evidence of other types of impact, including within education and wider society. Wikipedia is a logical choice for both of these because the role of a general encyclopaedia is to be an understandable repository of facts about a diverse array of topics and hence it may cite research to support its claims. To test whether Wikipedia could provide new evidence about the impact of scholarly research, this article counted citations to 302,328 articles and 18,735 monographs in English indexed by Scopus in the period 2005 to 2012. The results show that citations from Wikipedia to articles are too rare for most research evaluation purposes, with only 5% of articles being cited in all fields. In contrast, a third of monographs have at least one citation from Wikipedia, with the most in the arts and humanities. Hence, Wikipedia citations can provide extra impact evidence for academic monographs. Nevertheless, the results may be relatively easily manipulated and so Wikipedia is not recommended for evaluations affecting stakeholder interests.

0.0074376534 = product of:
  0.02231296 = sum of:
    0.02231296 = weight(_text_:to in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02231296 = score(doc=2768,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.26949292 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although citation counts are often used to evaluate the research impact of academic publications, they are problematic for books that aim for educational or cultural impact. To fill this gap, this article assesses whether a number of simple metrics derived from Amazon.com reviews of academic books could provide evidence of their impact. Based on a set of 2,739 academic monographs from 2008 and a set of 1,305 best-selling books in 15 Amazon.com academic subject categories, the existence of significant but low or moderate correlations between citations and numbers of reviews, combined with other evidence, suggests that online book reviews tend to reflect the wider popularity of a book rather than its academic impact, although there are substantial disciplinary differences. Metrics based on online reviews are therefore recommended for the evaluation of books that aim at a wide audience inside or outside academia when it is important to capture the broader impacts of educational or cultural activities and when they cannot be manipulated in advance of the evaluation.

0.0073336246 = product of:
  0.022000873 = sum of:
    0.022000873 = weight(_text_:to in 1658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022000873 = score(doc=1658,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.2657236 = fieldWeight in 1658, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1658)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that counting citations from books can help scholarly impact assessment and that Google Books (GB) is a useful source of such citation counts, despite its lack of a public citation index. Searching GB for citations produces approximate matches, however, and so its raw results need time-consuming human filtering. In response, this article introduces a method to automatically remove false and irrelevant matches from GB citation searches in addition to introducing refinements to a previous GB manual citation extraction method. The method was evaluated by manual checking of sampled GB results and comparing citations to about 14,500 monographs in the Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index (BKCI) against automatically extracted citations from GB across 24 subject areas. GB citations were 103% to 137% as numerous as BKCI citations in the humanities, except for tourism (72%) and linguistics (91%), 46% to 85% in social sciences, but only 8% to 53% in the sciences. In all cases, however, GB had substantially more citing books than did BKCI, with BKCI's results coming predominantly from journal articles. Moderate correlations between the GB and BKCI citation counts in social sciences and humanities, with most BKCI results coming from journal articles rather than books, suggests that they could measure the different aspects of impact, however.

0.0073336246 = product of:
  0.022000873 = sum of:
    0.022000873 = weight(_text_:to in 3349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022000873 = score(doc=3349,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.2657236 = fieldWeight in 3349, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3349)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The large multidisciplinary academic social website ResearchGate aims to help academics to connect with each other and to publicize their work. Despite its popularity, little is known about the age and discipline of the articles uploaded and viewed in the site and whether publication statistics from the site could be useful impact indicators. In response, this article assesses samples of ResearchGate articles uploaded at specific dates, comparing their views in the site to their Mendeley readers and Scopus-indexed citations. This analysis shows that ResearchGate is dominated by recent articles, which attract about three times as many views as older articles. ResearchGate has uneven coverage of scholarship, with the arts and humanities, health professions, and decision sciences poorly represented and some fields receiving twice as many views per article as others. View counts for uploaded articles have low to moderate positive correlations with both Scopus citations and Mendeley readers, which is consistent with them tending to reflect a wider audience than Scopus-publishing scholars. Hence, for articles uploaded to the site, view counts may give a genuinely new audience indicator.

0.006789617 = product of:
  0.02036885 = sum of:
    0.02036885 = weight(_text_:to in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02036885 = score(doc=4920,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24601223 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.006789617 = product of:
  0.02036885 = sum of:
    0.02036885 = weight(_text_:to in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02036885 = score(doc=382,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24601223 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.006789617 = product of:
  0.02036885 = sum of:
    0.02036885 = weight(_text_:to in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02036885 = score(doc=3317,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24601223 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Citations from patents to scientific publications provide useful evidence about the commercial impact of academic research, but automatically searchable databases are needed to exploit this connection for large-scale patent citation evaluations. Google covers multiple different international patent office databases but does not index patent citations or allow automatic searches. In response, this article introduces a semiautomatic indirect method via Bing to extract and filter patent citations from Google to academic papers with an overall precision of 98%. The method was evaluated with 322,192 science and engineering Scopus articles from every second year for the period 1996-2012. Although manual Google Patent searches give more results, especially for articles with many patent citations, the difference is not large enough to be a major problem. Within Biomedical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Pharmacology & Pharmaceutics, 7% to 10% of Scopus articles had at least one patent citation but other fields had far fewer, so patent citation analysis is only relevant for a minority of publications. Low but positive correlations between Google Patent citations and Scopus citations across all fields suggest that traditional citation counts cannot substitute for patent citations when evaluating research.

0.0061980444 = product of:
  0.018594133 = sum of:
    0.018594133 = weight(_text_:to in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018594133 = score(doc=3966,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.22457743 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The web contains a huge number of digital pictures. For scholars publishing such images it is important to know how well used their images are, but no method seems to have been developed for monitoring the value of academic images. In particular, can the impact of scientific or artistic images be assessed through identifying images copied or reused on the Internet? This article explores a case study of 260 NASA images to investigate whether the TinEye search engine could theoretically help to provide this information. The results show that the selected pictures had a median of 11 online copies each. However, a classification of 210 of these copies reveals that only 1.4% were explicitly used in academic publications, reflecting research impact, and the majority of the NASA pictures were used for informal scholarly (or educational) communication (37%). Additional analyses of world famous paintings and scientific images about pathology and molecular structures suggest that image contents are important for the type and extent of image use. Although it is reasonable to use statistics derived from TinEye for assessing image reuse value, the extent of its image indexing is not known.

0.0061980444 = product of:
  0.018594133 = sum of:
    0.018594133 = weight(_text_:to in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018594133 = score(doc=3766,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.22457743 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

SlideShare is a free social website that aims to help users distribute and find presentations. Owned by LinkedIn since 2012, it targets a professional audience but may give value to scholarship through creating a long-term record of the content of talks. This article tests this hypothesis by analyzing sets of general and scholarly related SlideShare documents using content and citation analysis and popularity statistics reported on the site. The results suggest that academics, students, and teachers are a minority of SlideShare uploaders, especially since 2010, with most documents not being directly related to scholarship or teaching. About two thirds of uploaded SlideShare documents are presentation slides, with the remainder often being files associated with presentations or video recordings of talks. SlideShare is therefore a presentation-centered site with a predominantly professional user base. Although a minority of the uploaded SlideShare documents are cited by, or cite, academic publications, probably too few articles are cited by SlideShare to consider extracting SlideShare citations for research evaluation. Nevertheless, scholars should consider SlideShare to be a potential source of academic and nonacademic information, particularly in library and information science, education, and business.

0.0061980444 = product of:
  0.018594133 = sum of:
    0.018594133 = weight(_text_:to in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018594133 = score(doc=3768,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.22457743 = fieldWeight in 3768, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3768)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although peer-review and citation counts are commonly used to help assess the scholarly impact of published research, informal reader feedback might also be exploited to help assess the wider impacts of books, such as their educational or cultural value. The social website Goodreads seems to be a reasonable source for this purpose because it includes a large number of book reviews and ratings by many users inside and outside of academia. To check this, Goodreads book metrics were compared with different book-based impact indicators for 15,928 academic books across broad fields. Goodreads engagements were numerous enough in the arts (85% of books had at least one), humanities (80%), and social sciences (67%) for use as a source of impact evidence. Low and moderate correlations between Goodreads book metrics and scholarly or non-scholarly indicators suggest that reader feedback in Goodreads reflects the many purposes of books rather than a single type of impact. Although Goodreads book metrics can be manipulated, they could be used guardedly by academics, authors, and publishers in evaluations.

0.0055436995 = product of:
  0.016631098 = sum of:
    0.016631098 = weight(_text_:to in 1614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016631098 = score(doc=1614,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.20086816 = fieldWeight in 1614, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1614)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Open-access online publication has made available an increasingly wide range of document types for scientometric analysis. In this article, we focus on citations in online presentations, seeking evidence of their value as nontraditional indicators of research impact. For this purpose, we searched for online PowerPoint files mentioning any one of 1,807 ISI-indexed journals in ten science and ten social science disciplines. We also manually classified 1,378 online PowerPoint citations to journals in eight additional science and social science disciplines. The results showed that very few journals were cited frequently enough in online PowerPoint files to make impact assessment worthwhile, with the main exceptions being popular magazines like Scientific American and Harvard Business Review. Surprisingly, however, there was little difference overall in the number of PowerPoint citations to science and to the social sciences, and also in the proportion representing traditional impact (about 60%) and wider impact (about 15%). It seems that the main scientometric value for online presentations may be in tracking the popularization of research, or for comparing the impact of whole journals rather than individual articles.