-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.04
0.038523465 = product of:
0.07704693 = sum of:
0.07704693 = sum of:
0.041943885 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041943885 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
0.03510305 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03510305 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = 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)
- Abstract
- Purpose Mendeley reader counts have been proposed as early indicators for the impact of academic publications. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether there are enough Mendeley readers for research evaluation purposes during the month when an article is first published. Design/methodology/approach Average Mendeley reader counts were compared to the average Scopus citation counts for 104,520 articles from ten disciplines during the second half of 2016. Findings Articles attracted, on average, between 0.1 and 0.8 Mendeley readers per article in the month in which they first appeared in Scopus. This is about ten times more than the average Scopus citation count. Research limitations/implications Other disciplines may use Mendeley more or less than the ten investigated here. The results are dependent on Scopus's indexing practices, and Mendeley reader counts can be manipulated and have national and seniority biases. Practical implications Mendeley reader counts during the month of publication are more powerful than Scopus citations for comparing the average impacts of groups of documents but are not high enough to differentiate between the impacts of typical individual articles. Originality/value This is the first multi-disciplinary and systematic analysis of Mendeley reader counts from the publication month of an article.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Harries, G.: ¬The connection between the research of a university and counts of links to its Web pages : an investigation based upon a classification of the relationships of pages to the research of the host university (2003)
0.01
0.01468036 = product of:
0.02936072 = sum of:
0.02936072 = product of:
0.05872144 = sum of:
0.05872144 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05872144 = score(doc=1676,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = queryNorm
0.29604656 = fieldWeight in 1676, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1676)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
0.014041219 = product of:
0.028082438 = sum of:
0.028082438 = product of:
0.056164876 = sum of:
0.056164876 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056164876 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.01
0.012410802 = product of:
0.024821604 = sum of:
0.024821604 = product of:
0.049643207 = sum of:
0.049643207 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049643207 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 12:43:51
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011)
0.01
0.010530914 = product of:
0.021061828 = sum of:
0.021061828 = product of:
0.042123657 = sum of:
0.042123657 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042123657 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:27:06
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.01
0.010530914 = product of:
0.021061828 = sum of:
0.021061828 = product of:
0.042123657 = sum of:
0.042123657 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042123657 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.01
0.010530914 = product of:
0.021061828 = sum of:
0.021061828 = product of:
0.042123657 = sum of:
0.042123657 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042123657 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.01
0.010530914 = product of:
0.021061828 = sum of:
0.021061828 = product of:
0.042123657 = sum of:
0.042123657 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042123657 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
-
Thelwall, M.: Extracting macroscopic information from Web links (2001)
0.01
0.010485971 = product of:
0.020971943 = sum of:
0.020971943 = product of:
0.041943885 = sum of:
0.041943885 = weight(_text_:indexing in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041943885 = score(doc=6851,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 6851, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6851)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Thelwall, M.; Vaughan, L.; Björneborn, L.: Webometrics (2004)
0.01
0.010485971 = product of:
0.020971943 = sum of:
0.020971943 = product of:
0.041943885 = sum of:
0.041943885 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041943885 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations : a multi-discipline exploratory analysis (2007)
0.01
0.010485971 = product of:
0.020971943 = sum of:
0.020971943 = product of:
0.041943885 = sum of:
0.041943885 = weight(_text_:indexing in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041943885 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google book search : citation analysis for social science and the humanities (2009)
0.01
0.010485971 = product of:
0.020971943 = sum of:
0.020971943 = product of:
0.041943885 = sum of:
0.041943885 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041943885 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Rezaie, S.: Can the impact of scholarly images be assessed online? : an exploratory study using image identification technology (2010)
0.01
0.010485971 = product of:
0.020971943 = sum of:
0.020971943 = product of:
0.041943885 = sum of:
0.041943885 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041943885 = score(doc=3966,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Abdoli, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: In which fields are citations indicators of research quality? (2023)
0.01
0.010485971 = product of:
0.020971943 = sum of:
0.020971943 = product of:
0.041943885 = sum of:
0.041943885 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041943885 = score(doc=1033,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 1033, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1033)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.01
0.008775762 = product of:
0.017551525 = sum of:
0.017551525 = product of:
0.03510305 = sum of:
0.03510305 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03510305 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.01
0.008775762 = product of:
0.017551525 = sum of:
0.017551525 = product of:
0.03510305 = sum of:
0.03510305 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03510305 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:29:23
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.01
0.008775762 = product of:
0.017551525 = sum of:
0.017551525 = product of:
0.03510305 = sum of:
0.03510305 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03510305 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 6. 4.2012 18:16:22
-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.01
0.008775762 = product of:
0.017551525 = sum of:
0.017551525 = product of:
0.03510305 = sum of:
0.03510305 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03510305 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.01
0.008775762 = product of:
0.017551525 = sum of:
0.017551525 = product of:
0.03510305 = sum of:
0.03510305 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03510305 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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)
0.01
0.008775762 = product of:
0.017551525 = sum of:
0.017551525 = product of:
0.03510305 = sum of:
0.03510305 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03510305 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051817898 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
