-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.04
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
-
Thelwall, M.: Web impact factors and search engine coverage (2000)
0.03
0.029661283 = product of:
0.059322566 = sum of:
0.059322566 = product of:
0.11864513 = sum of:
0.11864513 = weight(_text_:2000 in 4539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11864513 = score(doc=4539,freq=5.0), product of:
0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
0.051695216 = queryNorm
0.5663466 = fieldWeight in 4539, product of:
2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
5.0 = termFreq=5.0
4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4539)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 56(2000) no.2, S.185-189
- Year
- 2000
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.; Oppenheim, C.: Variations between subjects in the extent to which the social sciences have become more interdisciplinary (2011)
0.02
0.016581161 = product of:
0.033162322 = sum of:
0.033162322 = product of:
0.066324644 = sum of:
0.066324644 = weight(_text_:2000 in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.066324644 = score(doc=4465,freq=4.0), product of:
0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
0.051695216 = queryNorm
0.31659737 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Increasing interdisciplinarity has been a policy objective since the 1990s, promoted by many governments and funding agencies, but the question is: How deeply has this affected the social sciences? Although numerous articles have suggested that research has become more interdisciplinary, yet no study has compared the extent to which the interdisciplinarity of different social science subjects has changed. To address this gap, changes in the level of interdisciplinarity since 1980 are investigated for subjects with many articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), using the percentage of cross-disciplinary citing documents (PCDCD) to evaluate interdisciplinarity. For the 14 SSCI subjects investigated, the median level of interdisciplinarity, as measured using cross-disciplinary citations, declined from 1980 to 1990, but rose sharply between 1990 and 2000, confirming previous research. This increase was not fully matched by an increase in the percentage of articles that were assigned to more than one subject category. Nevertheless, although on average the social sciences have recently become more interdisciplinary, the extent of this change varies substantially from subject to subject. The SSCI subject with the largest increase in interdisciplinarity between 1990 and 2000 was Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) but there is evidence that the level of interdisciplinarity of IS&LS increased less quickly during the first decade of this century.
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
0.014007976 = product of:
0.028015953 = sum of:
0.028015953 = product of:
0.056031905 = sum of:
0.056031905 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056031905 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051695216 = 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
0.012381419 = product of:
0.024762837 = sum of:
0.024762837 = product of:
0.049525674 = sum of:
0.049525674 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049525674 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051695216 = 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
0.010505982 = product of:
0.021011963 = sum of:
0.021011963 = product of:
0.042023927 = sum of:
0.042023927 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042023927 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051695216 = 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
0.010505982 = product of:
0.021011963 = sum of:
0.021011963 = product of:
0.042023927 = sum of:
0.042023927 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042023927 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051695216 = 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
0.010505982 = product of:
0.021011963 = sum of:
0.021011963 = product of:
0.042023927 = sum of:
0.042023927 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042023927 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051695216 = 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
0.010505982 = product of:
0.021011963 = sum of:
0.021011963 = product of:
0.042023927 = sum of:
0.042023927 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042023927 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051695216 = 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
0.008754985 = 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.
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.01
0.008754985 = product of:
0.01750997 = sum of:
0.01750997 = product of:
0.03501994 = sum of:
0.03501994 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03501994 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051695216 = 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
0.008754985 = product of:
0.01750997 = sum of:
0.01750997 = product of:
0.03501994 = sum of:
0.03501994 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03501994 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051695216 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.01
0.008754985 = product of:
0.01750997 = sum of:
0.01750997 = product of:
0.03501994 = sum of:
0.03501994 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03501994 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051695216 = 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
0.008754985 = product of:
0.01750997 = sum of:
0.01750997 = product of:
0.03501994 = sum of:
0.03501994 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03501994 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051695216 = 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
0.008754985 = 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
