-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.03
0.03226404 = product of:
0.06452808 = sum of:
0.06452808 = sum of:
0.02921053 = weight(_text_:classification in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02921053 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = queryNorm
0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
0.03531755 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03531755 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = 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)
- 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.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
0.014127021 = product of:
0.028254041 = sum of:
0.028254041 = product of:
0.056508083 = sum of:
0.056508083 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056508083 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = 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
0.012486639 = product of:
0.024973279 = sum of:
0.024973279 = product of:
0.049946558 = sum of:
0.049946558 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049946558 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = 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
0.010595265 = product of:
0.02119053 = sum of:
0.02119053 = product of:
0.04238106 = sum of:
0.04238106 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04238106 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = 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
0.010595265 = product of:
0.02119053 = sum of:
0.02119053 = product of:
0.04238106 = sum of:
0.04238106 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04238106 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = 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
0.010595265 = product of:
0.02119053 = sum of:
0.02119053 = product of:
0.04238106 = sum of:
0.04238106 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04238106 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = 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
0.010595265 = product of:
0.02119053 = sum of:
0.02119053 = product of:
0.04238106 = sum of:
0.04238106 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04238106 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Harries, G.: ¬The connection between the research of a university and counts of links to its Web pages : an investigation based upon a classification of the relationships of pages to the research of the host university (2003)
0.01
0.010223686 = product of:
0.020447372 = sum of:
0.020447372 = product of:
0.040894743 = sum of:
0.040894743 = weight(_text_:classification in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040894743 = score(doc=1676,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1676, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1676)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.01
0.008829388 = product of:
0.017658776 = sum of:
0.017658776 = product of:
0.03531755 = sum of:
0.03531755 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03531755 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = 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
0.008829388 = product of:
0.017658776 = sum of:
0.017658776 = product of:
0.03531755 = sum of:
0.03531755 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03531755 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = 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
0.008829388 = product of:
0.017658776 = sum of:
0.017658776 = product of:
0.03531755 = sum of:
0.03531755 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03531755 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = 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
0.008829388 = product of:
0.017658776 = sum of:
0.017658776 = product of:
0.03531755 = sum of:
0.03531755 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03531755 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = 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
0.008829388 = product of:
0.017658776 = sum of:
0.017658776 = product of:
0.03531755 = sum of:
0.03531755 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03531755 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = 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
0.008829388 = product of:
0.017658776 = sum of:
0.017658776 = product of:
0.03531755 = sum of:
0.03531755 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03531755 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = 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
-
Angus, E.; Thelwall, M.; Stuart, D.: General patterns of tag usage among university groups in Flickr (2008)
0.01
0.00876316 = product of:
0.01752632 = sum of:
0.01752632 = product of:
0.03505264 = sum of:
0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 2554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03505264 = score(doc=2554,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = queryNorm
0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2554, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2554)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this research is to investigate general patterns of tag usage and determines the usefulness of the tags used within university image groups to the wider Flickr community. There has been a significant rise in the use of Web 2.0 social network web sites and online applications in recent years. One of the most popular is Flickr, an online image management application. Design/methodology/approach - This study uses a webometric data collection, classification and informetric analysis. Findings - The results show that members of university image groups tend to tag in a manner that is of use to users of the system as a whole rather than merely for the tag creator. Originality/value - This paper gives a valuable insight into the tagging practices of image groups in Flickr.
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Rezaie, S.: Can the impact of scholarly images be assessed online? : an exploratory study using image identification technology (2010)
0.01
0.0073026326 = product of:
0.014605265 = sum of:
0.014605265 = product of:
0.02921053 = sum of:
0.02921053 = weight(_text_:classification in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02921053 = score(doc=3966,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = queryNorm
0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The web contains a huge number of digital pictures. For scholars publishing such images it is important to know how well used their images are, but no method seems to have been developed for monitoring the value of academic images. In particular, can the impact of scientific or artistic images be assessed through identifying images copied or reused on the Internet? This article explores a case study of 260 NASA images to investigate whether the TinEye search engine could theoretically help to provide this information. The results show that the selected pictures had a median of 11 online copies each. However, a classification of 210 of these copies reveals that only 1.4% were explicitly used in academic publications, reflecting research impact, and the majority of the NASA pictures were used for informal scholarly (or educational) communication (37%). Additional analyses of world famous paintings and scientific images about pathology and molecular structures suggest that image contents are important for the type and extent of image use. Although it is reasonable to use statistics derived from TinEye for assessing image reuse value, the extent of its image indexing is not known.
-
Shema, H.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Thelwall, M.: How is research blogged? : A content analysis approach (2015)
0.01
0.0073026326 = product of:
0.014605265 = sum of:
0.014605265 = product of:
0.02921053 = sum of:
0.02921053 = weight(_text_:classification in 1863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02921053 = score(doc=1863,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = queryNorm
0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 1863, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1863)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Blogs that cite academic articles have emerged as a potential source of alternative impact metrics for the visibility of the blogged articles. Nevertheless, to evaluate more fully the value of blog citations, it is necessary to investigate whether research blogs focus on particular types of articles or give new perspectives on scientific discourse. Therefore, we studied the characteristics of peer-reviewed references in blogs and the typical content of blog posts to gain insight into bloggers' motivations. The sample consisted of 391 blog posts from 2010 to 2012 in Researchblogging.org's health category. The bloggers mostly cited recent research articles or reviews from top multidisciplinary and general medical journals. Using content analysis methods, we created a general classification scheme for blog post content with 10 major topic categories, each with several subcategories. The results suggest that health research bloggers rarely self-cite and that the vast majority of their blog posts (90%) include a general discussion of the issue covered in the article, with more than one quarter providing health-related advice based on the article(s) covered. These factors suggest a genuine attempt to engage with a wider, nonacademic audience. Nevertheless, almost 30% of the posts included some criticism of the issues being discussed.
-
Thelwall, M.; Goriunova, O.; Vis, F.; Faulkner, S.; Burns, A.; Aulich, J.; Mas-Bleda, A.; Stuart, E.; D'Orazio, F.: Chatting through pictures : a classification of images tweeted in one week in the UK and USA (2016)
0.01
0.0073026326 = product of:
0.014605265 = sum of:
0.014605265 = product of:
0.02921053 = sum of:
0.02921053 = weight(_text_:classification in 3215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02921053 = score(doc=3215,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = queryNorm
0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 3215, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3215)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Abdoli, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: In which fields are citations indicators of research quality? (2023)
0.01
0.0073026326 = product of:
0.014605265 = sum of:
0.014605265 = product of:
0.02921053 = sum of:
0.02921053 = weight(_text_:classification in 1033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02921053 = score(doc=1033,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = queryNorm
0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 1033, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1033)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Citation counts are widely used as indicators of research quality to support or replace human peer review and for lists of top cited papers, researchers, and institutions. Nevertheless, the relationship between citations and research quality is poorly evidenced. We report the first large-scale science-wide academic evaluation of the relationship between research quality and citations (field normalized citation counts), correlating them for 87,739 journal articles in 34 field-based UK Units of Assessment (UoA). The two correlate positively in all academic fields, from very weak (0.1) to strong (0.5), reflecting broadly linear relationships in all fields. We give the first evidence that the correlations are positive even across the arts and humanities. The patterns are similar for the field classification schemes of Scopus and Dimensions.ai, although varying for some individual subjects and therefore more uncertain for these. We also show for the first time that no field has a citation threshold beyond which all articles are excellent quality, so lists of top cited articles are not pure collections of excellence, and neither is any top citation percentile indicator. Thus, while appropriately field normalized citations associate positively with research quality in all fields, they never perfectly reflect it, even at high values.
