Search (125 results, page 1 of 7)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Costas, R.; Zahedi, Z.; Wouters, P.: ¬The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media : large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations (2015) 0.07 
    0.07193736 = product of:
  0.14387472 = sum of:
    0.14387472 = sum of:
      0.1093608 = weight(_text_:news in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1093608 = score(doc=2598,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.26705483 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05094824 = queryNorm
          0.40950692 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.034513917 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034513917 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17841205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05094824 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the disciplinary orientation of scientific publications that were mentioned on different social media platforms, focussing on their differences and similarities with citation counts. Design/methodology/approach - Social media metrics and readership counts, associated with 500,216 publications and their citation data from the Web of Science database, were collected from Altmetric.com and Mendeley. Results are presented through descriptive statistical analyses together with science maps generated with VOSviewer. Findings - The results confirm Mendeley as the most prevalent social media source with similar characteristics to citations in their distribution across fields and their density in average values per publication. The humanities, natural sciences, and engineering disciplines have a much lower presence of social media metrics. Twitter has a stronger focus on general medicine and social sciences. Other sources (blog, Facebook, Google+, and news media mentions) are more prominent in regards to multidisciplinary journals. Originality/value - This paper reinforces the relevance of Mendeley as a social media source for analytical purposes from a disciplinary perspective, being particularly relevant for the social sciences (together with Twitter). Key implications for the use of social media metrics on the evaluation of research performance (e.g. the concentration of some social media metrics, such as blogs, news items, etc., around multidisciplinary journals) are identified.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  2. Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020) 0.06 
    0.055921838 = product of:
  0.111843675 = sum of:
    0.111843675 = sum of:
      0.07732976 = weight(_text_:news in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07732976 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26705483 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05094824 = queryNorm
          0.28956512 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
      0.034513917 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034513917 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17841205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05094824 = 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)
    Abstract
    Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  3. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: News stories as evidence for research? : BBC citations from articles, Books, and Wikipedia (2017) 0.05 
    0.047354616 = product of:
  0.09470923 = sum of:
    0.09470923 = product of:
      0.18941846 = sum of:
        0.18941846 = weight(_text_:news in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18941846 = score(doc=3760,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.26705483 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.7092868 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Although news stories target the general public and are sometimes inaccurate, they can serve as sources of real-world information for researchers. This article investigates the extent to which academics exploit journalism using content and citation analyses of online BBC News stories cited by Scopus articles. A total of 27,234 Scopus-indexed publications have cited at least one BBC News story, with a steady annual increase. Citations from the arts and humanities (2.8% of publications in 2015) and social sciences (1.5%) were more likely than citations from medicine (0.1%) and science (<0.1%). Surprisingly, half of the sampled Scopus-cited science and technology (53%) and medicine and health (47%) stories were based on academic research, rather than otherwise unpublished information, suggesting that researchers have chosen a lower-quality secondary source for their citations. Nevertheless, the BBC News stories that were most frequently cited by Scopus, Google Books, and Wikipedia introduced new information from many different topics, including politics, business, economics, statistics, and reports about events. Thus, news stories are mediating real-world knowledge into the academic domain, a potential cause for concern.
  4. Wettlauf der Wissenschaft (2004) 0.04 
    0.044737473 = product of:
  0.089474946 = sum of:
    0.089474946 = sum of:
      0.06186381 = weight(_text_:news in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06186381 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26705483 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05094824 = queryNorm
          0.2316521 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
      0.027611133 = weight(_text_:22 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027611133 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17841205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05094824 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Vgl.: http://www.i-med.ac.at/mypoint/news/2004051201.xml (cf) (Quelle: U.S. Is Losing Its Dominance In the Sciences, by WI LLIAM J. BROAD, New York Times, May 3, 2004)
    Source
    Online Mitteilungen. 2004, Nr.79, S.22-23 [=Mitteilungen VÖB 57(2004) H.2]
  5. Didegah, F.; Bowman, T.D.; Holmberg, K.: On the differences between citations and altmetrics : an investigation of factors driving altmetrics versus citations for finnish articles (2018) 0.03 
    0.03348477 = product of:
  0.06696954 = sum of:
    0.06696954 = product of:
      0.13393909 = sum of:
        0.13393909 = weight(_text_:news in 4258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13393909 = score(doc=4258,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.26705483 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.50154155 = fieldWeight in 4258, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4258)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study examines a range of factors associated with future citation and altmetric counts to a paper. The factors include journal impact factor, individual collaboration, international collaboration, institution prestige, country prestige, research funding, abstract readability, abstract length, title length, number of cited references, field size, and field type and will be modeled in association with citation counts, Mendeley readers, Twitter posts, Facebook posts, blog posts, and news posts. The results demonstrate that eight factors are important for increased citation counts, seven different factors are important for increased Mendeley readers, eight factors are important for increased Twitter posts, three factors are important for increased Facebook posts, six factors are important for increased blog posts, and five factors are important for increased news posts. Journal impact factor and international collaboration are the two factors that significantly associate with increased citation counts and with all altmetric scores. Moreover, it seems that the factors driving Mendeley readership are similar to those driving citation counts. However, the altmetric events differ from each other in terms of a small number of factors; for instance, institution prestige and country prestige associate with increased Mendeley readers and blog and news posts, but it is an insignificant factor for Twitter and Facebook posts. The findings contribute to the continued development of theoretical models and methodological developments associated with capturing, interpreting, and understanding altmetric events.
  6. Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986) 0.03 
    0.027611133 = product of:
  0.055222265 = sum of:
    0.055222265 = product of:
      0.11044453 = sum of:
        0.11044453 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11044453 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17841205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
  7. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.03 
    0.027611133 = product of:
  0.055222265 = sum of:
    0.055222265 = product of:
      0.11044453 = sum of:
        0.11044453 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11044453 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17841205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  8. Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987) 0.03 
    0.027611133 = product of:
  0.055222265 = sum of:
    0.055222265 = product of:
      0.11044453 = sum of:
        0.11044453 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11044453 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17841205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
  9. Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998) 0.02 
    0.024405023 = product of:
  0.048810046 = sum of:
    0.048810046 = product of:
      0.09762009 = sum of:
        0.09762009 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09762009 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17841205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:22:35
  10. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.02 
    0.024405023 = product of:
  0.048810046 = sum of:
    0.048810046 = product of:
      0.09762009 = sum of:
        0.09762009 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09762009 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17841205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  11. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990) 0.02 
    0.02415974 = product of:
  0.04831948 = sum of:
    0.04831948 = product of:
      0.09663896 = sum of:
        0.09663896 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09663896 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17841205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:29
  12. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990) 0.02 
    0.02415974 = product of:
  0.04831948 = sum of:
    0.04831948 = product of:
      0.09663896 = sum of:
        0.09663896 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09663896 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17841205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:55
  13. Alger, J.: Can RANK be used to generate a reliable author list for cocitation studies? (1996) 0.02 
    0.023198929 = product of:
  0.046397857 = sum of:
    0.046397857 = product of:
      0.092795715 = sum of:
        0.092795715 = weight(_text_:news in 7171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.092795715 = score(doc=7171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26705483 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.34747815 = fieldWeight in 7171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    College and research libraries news. 57(1996) no.6, S.567-574
  14. Simkin, M.V.; Roychowdhury, V.P.: Why does attention to web articles fall with Time? (2015) 0.02 
    0.023198929 = product of:
  0.046397857 = sum of:
    0.046397857 = product of:
      0.092795715 = sum of:
        0.092795715 = weight(_text_:news in 2163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.092795715 = score(doc=2163,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26705483 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.34747815 = fieldWeight in 2163, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2163)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We analyze access statistics of 150 blog entries and news articles for periods of up to 3 years. Access rate falls as an inverse power of time passed since publication. The power law holds for periods of up to 1,000 days. The exponents are different for different blogs and are distributed between 0.6 and 3.2. We argue that the decay of attention to a web article is caused by the link to it first dropping down the list of links on the website's front page and then disappearing from the front page and its subsequent movement further into background. The other proposed explanations that use a decaying with time novelty factor, or some intricate theory of human dynamics, cannot explain all of the experimental observations.
  15. Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005) 0.02 
    0.020708349 = product of:
  0.041416697 = sum of:
    0.041416697 = product of:
      0.082833394 = sum of:
        0.082833394 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.082833394 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17841205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2007 17:02:22
  16. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.02 
    0.020708349 = product of:
  0.041416697 = sum of:
    0.041416697 = product of:
      0.082833394 = sum of:
        0.082833394 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.082833394 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17841205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  17. Maier, S.: Wie Wissenschaftler berühmt werden : Anzahl der Veröffentlichungen zählt - "Google" ist das Maß aller Dinge (2004) 0.02 
    0.01933244 = product of:
  0.03866488 = sum of:
    0.03866488 = product of:
      0.07732976 = sum of:
        0.07732976 = weight(_text_:news in 2901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07732976 = score(doc=2901,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26705483 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.28956512 = fieldWeight in 2901, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2901)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Vgl.: http:/www.wissenschaft.de/wissen/news/240593.html
  18. Khan, G.F.; Park, H.W.: Measuring the triple helix on the web : longitudinal trends in the university-industry-government relationship in Korea (2011) 0.02 
    0.01933244 = product of:
  0.03866488 = sum of:
    0.03866488 = product of:
      0.07732976 = sum of:
        0.07732976 = weight(_text_:news in 4944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07732976 = score(doc=4944,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26705483 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.28956512 = fieldWeight in 4944, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4944)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study examines longitudinal trends in the university-industry-government (UIG) relationship on the web in the Korean context by using triple helix (TH) indicators. The study considers various Internet resources, including websites/documents, blogs, online cafes, Knowledge-In (comparable to Yahoo! Answers), and online news sites, by employing webometric and co-word analysis techniques to ascertain longitudinal trends in the UIG relationship, which have received considerable attention in the last decade. The results indicate that the UIG relationship varied according to the government's policies and that there was some tension in the longitudinal UIG relationship. Further, websites/documents and blogs were the most reliable sources for examining the strength of and variations in the bilateral and trilateral UIG relationships on the web. In addition, web-based T(uig) values showed a stronger trilateral relationship and larger variations in the UIG relationship than Science Citation Index-based T(uig) values. The results suggest that various Internet resources (e.g., advanced search engines, websites/documents, blogs, and online cafes), together with TH indicators, can be used to explore the UIG relationship on the web.
  19. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Abdoli, M.: ¬The role of online videos in research communication : a content analysis of YouTube videos cited in academic publications (2012) 0.02 
    0.01933244 = product of:
  0.03866488 = sum of:
    0.03866488 = product of:
      0.07732976 = sum of:
        0.07732976 = weight(_text_:news in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07732976 = score(doc=382,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26705483 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.28956512 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Although there is some evidence that online videos are increasingly used by academics for informal scholarly communication and teaching, the extent to which they are used in published academic research is unknown. This article explores the extent to which YouTube videos are cited in academic publications and whether there are significant broad disciplinary differences in this practice. To investigate, we extracted the URL citations to YouTube videos from academic publications indexed by Scopus. A total of 1,808 Scopus publications cited at least one YouTube video, and there was a steady upward growth in citing online videos within scholarly publications from 2006 to 2011, with YouTube citations being most common within arts and humanities (0.3%) and the social sciences (0.2%). A content analysis of 551 YouTube videos cited by research articles indicated that in science (78%) and in medicine and health sciences (77%), over three fourths of the cited videos had either direct scientific (e.g., laboratory experiments) or scientific-related contents (e.g., academic lectures or education) whereas in the arts and humanities, about 80% of the YouTube videos had art, culture, or history themes, and in the social sciences, about 63% of the videos were related to news, politics, advertisements, and documentaries. This shows both the disciplinary differences and the wide variety of innovative research communication uses found for videos within the different subject areas.
  20. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Do altmetric scores reflect article quality? : evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 (2023) 0.02 
    0.01933244 = product of:
  0.03866488 = sum of:
    0.03866488 = product of:
      0.07732976 = sum of:
        0.07732976 = weight(_text_:news in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07732976 = score(doc=947,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26705483 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05094824 = queryNorm
            0.28956512 = fieldWeight in 947, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2416887 = idf(docFreq=635, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=947)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Altmetrics are web-based quantitative impact or attention indicators for academic articles that have been proposed to supplement citation counts. This article reports the first assessment of the extent to which mature altmetrics from Altmetric.com and Mendeley associate with individual article quality scores. It exploits expert norm-referenced peer review scores from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 for 67,030+ journal articles in all fields 2014-2017/2018, split into 34 broadly field-based Units of Assessment (UoAs). Altmetrics correlated more strongly with research quality than previously found, although less strongly than raw and field normalized Scopus citation counts. Surprisingly, field normalizing citation counts can reduce their strength as a quality indicator for articles in a single field. For most UoAs, Mendeley reader counts are the best altmetric (e.g., three Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.5), tweet counts are also a moderate strength indicator in eight UoAs (Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.3), ahead of news (eight correlations above 0.3, but generally weaker), blogs (five correlations above 0.3), and Facebook (three correlations above 0.3) citations, at least in the United Kingdom. In general, altmetrics are the strongest indicators of research quality in the health and physical sciences and weakest in the arts and humanities.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 114
  • d 10
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Themes