Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.040959276 = product of:
  0.08191855 = sum of:
    0.08191855 = sum of:
      0.046898607 = weight(_text_:2000 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046898607 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051695216 = queryNorm
          0.22386816 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.03501994 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03501994 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051695216 = 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)

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

0.008754985 = product of:
  0.01750997 = sum of:
    0.01750997 = product of:
      0.03501994 = sum of:
        0.03501994 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03501994 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = 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.

0.008754985 = product of:
  0.01750997 = sum of:
    0.01750997 = product of:
      0.03501994 = sum of:
        0.03501994 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03501994 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = 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