-
Barjak, F.; Li, X.; Thelwall, M.: Which factors explain the Web impact of scientists' personal homepages? (2007)
0.06
0.061986778 = product of:
0.123973556 = sum of:
0.123973556 = product of:
0.24794711 = sum of:
0.24794711 = weight(_text_:homepage in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.24794711 = score(doc=73,freq=12.0), product of:
0.33761188 = queryWeight, product of:
6.784232 = idf(docFreq=135, maxDocs=44218)
0.0497642 = queryNorm
0.73441464 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
6.784232 = idf(docFreq=135, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In recent years, a considerable body of Webometric research has used hyperlinks to generate indicators for the impact of Web documents and the organizations that created them. The relationship between this Web impact and other, offline impact indicators has been explored for entire universities, departments, countries, and scientific journals, but not yet for individual scientists-an important omission. The present research closes this gap by investigating factors that may influence the Web impact (i.e., inlink counts) of scientists' personal homepages. Data concerning 456 scientists from five scientific disciplines in six European countries were analyzed, showing that both homepage content and personal and institutional characteristics of the homepage owners had significant relationships with inlink counts. A multivariate statistical analysis confirmed that full-text articles are the most linked-to content in homepages. At the individual homepage level, hyperlinks are related to several offline characteristics. Notable differences regarding total inlinks to scientists' homepages exist between the scientific disciplines and the countries in the sample. There also are both gender and age effects: fewer external inlinks (i.e., links from other Web domains) to the homepages of female and of older scientists. There is only a weak relationship between a scientist's recognition and homepage inlinks and, surprisingly, no relationship between research productivity and inlink counts. Contrary to expectations, the size of collaboration networks is negatively related to hyperlink counts. Some of the relationships between hyperlinks to homepages and the properties of their owners can be explained by the content that the homepage owners put on their homepage and their level of Internet use; however, the findings about productivity and collaborations do not seem to have a simple, intuitive explanation. Overall, the results emphasize the complexity of the phenomenon of Web linking, when analyzed at the level of individual pages.
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
0.013484725 = product of:
0.02696945 = sum of:
0.02696945 = product of:
0.0539389 = sum of:
0.0539389 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0539389 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17426576 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0497642 = 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
0.011918926 = product of:
0.023837851 = sum of:
0.023837851 = product of:
0.047675703 = sum of:
0.047675703 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047675703 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17426576 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0497642 = 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
0.010113543 = product of:
0.020227086 = sum of:
0.020227086 = product of:
0.04045417 = sum of:
0.04045417 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04045417 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17426576 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0497642 = 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
0.010113543 = product of:
0.020227086 = sum of:
0.020227086 = product of:
0.04045417 = sum of:
0.04045417 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04045417 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17426576 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0497642 = 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
0.010113543 = product of:
0.020227086 = sum of:
0.020227086 = product of:
0.04045417 = sum of:
0.04045417 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04045417 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17426576 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0497642 = 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
0.010113543 = product of:
0.020227086 = sum of:
0.020227086 = product of:
0.04045417 = sum of:
0.04045417 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04045417 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17426576 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0497642 = 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
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.01
0.008427953 = product of:
0.016855907 = sum of:
0.016855907 = product of:
0.033711813 = sum of:
0.033711813 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033711813 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17426576 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0497642 = 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
0.008427953 = product of:
0.016855907 = sum of:
0.016855907 = product of:
0.033711813 = sum of:
0.033711813 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033711813 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17426576 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0497642 = 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
0.008427953 = product of:
0.016855907 = sum of:
0.016855907 = product of:
0.033711813 = sum of:
0.033711813 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033711813 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17426576 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0497642 = 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
0.008427953 = product of:
0.016855907 = sum of:
0.016855907 = product of:
0.033711813 = sum of:
0.033711813 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033711813 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17426576 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0497642 = 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.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.01
0.008427953 = product of:
0.016855907 = sum of:
0.016855907 = product of:
0.033711813 = sum of:
0.033711813 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033711813 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17426576 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0497642 = 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)
0.5 = 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
0.008427953 = product of:
0.016855907 = sum of:
0.016855907 = product of:
0.033711813 = sum of:
0.033711813 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033711813 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17426576 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0497642 = 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
0.008427953 = product of:
0.016855907 = sum of:
0.016855907 = product of:
0.033711813 = sum of:
0.033711813 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033711813 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17426576 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0497642 = 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
