Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.089238286 = product of:
  0.17847657 = sum of:
    0.17847657 = product of:
      0.35695314 = sum of:
        0.35695314 = weight(_text_:scholar in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.35695314 = score(doc=337,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.0883348 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We use a new data gathering method, "Web/URL citation," Web/URL and Google Scholar to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, and education) based upon a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 open access (OA) journals published in 2001. A Web/URL citation of an online journal article is a Web mention of its title, URL, or both. For each discipline, except psychology, we found significant correlations between Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI, here: ISI) citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations. Google Scholar citations correlated more highly with ISI citations than did Google Web/URL citations, indicating that the Web/URL method measures a broader type of citation phenomenon. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines, suggesting that Google Scholar is more comprehensive for social sciences and perhaps also when conference articles are valued and published online. We also found large disciplinary differences in the percentage overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citation sources. Finally, although we found many significant trends, there were also numerous exceptions, suggesting that replacing traditional citation sources with the Web or Google Scholar for research impact calculations would be problematic.

Object

Google Scholar

0.06651429 = product of:
  0.13302858 = sum of:
    0.13302858 = product of:
      0.26605716 = sum of:
        0.26605716 = weight(_text_:scholar in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26605716 = score(doc=4920,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.8111969 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Object

Google Scholar

0.008458386 = product of:
  0.016916772 = sum of:
    0.016916772 = product of:
      0.033833545 = sum of:
        0.033833545 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033833545 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = 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.

0.008458386 = product of:
  0.016916772 = sum of:
    0.016916772 = product of:
      0.033833545 = sum of:
        0.033833545 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033833545 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = 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

0.008458386 = product of:
  0.016916772 = sum of:
    0.016916772 = product of:
      0.033833545 = sum of:
        0.033833545 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033833545 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = 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