-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.11
0.10902387 = product of:
0.1635358 = sum of:
0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08966068 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
0.07387512 = sum of:
0.04021717 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04021717 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
0.033657953 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033657953 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose Mendeley reader counts have been proposed as early indicators for the impact of academic publications. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether there are enough Mendeley readers for research evaluation purposes during the month when an article is first published. Design/methodology/approach Average Mendeley reader counts were compared to the average Scopus citation counts for 104,520 articles from ten disciplines during the second half of 2016. Findings Articles attracted, on average, between 0.1 and 0.8 Mendeley readers per article in the month in which they first appeared in Scopus. This is about ten times more than the average Scopus citation count. Research limitations/implications Other disciplines may use Mendeley more or less than the ten investigated here. The results are dependent on Scopus's indexing practices, and Mendeley reader counts can be manipulated and have national and seniority biases. Practical implications Mendeley reader counts during the month of publication are more powerful than Scopus citations for comparing the average impacts of groups of documents but are not high enough to differentiate between the impacts of typical individual articles. Originality/value This is the first multi-disciplinary and systematic analysis of Mendeley reader counts from the publication month of an article.
- 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)
0.07
0.07099311 = product of:
0.10648966 = sum of:
0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08966068 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
0.016828977 = product of:
0.033657953 = sum of:
0.033657953 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033657953 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
-
Thelwall, M.: Homophily in MySpace (2009)
0.04
0.03586427 = product of:
0.10759281 = sum of:
0.10759281 = weight(_text_:systematic in 2706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10759281 = score(doc=2706,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.3788859 = fieldWeight in 2706, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2706)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Social network sites like MySpace are increasingly important environments for expressing and maintaining interpersonal connections, but does online communication exacerbate or ameliorate the known tendency for offline friendships to form between similar people (homophily)? This article reports an exploratory study of the similarity between the reported attributes of pairs of active MySpace Friends based upon a systematic sample of 2,567 members joining on June 18, 2007 and Friends who commented on their profile. The results showed no evidence of gender homophily but significant evidence of homophily for ethnicity, religion, age, country, marital status, attitude towards children, sexual orientation, and reason for joining MySpace. There were also some imbalances: women and the young were disproportionately commenters, and commenters tended to have more Friends than commentees. Overall, it seems that although traditional sources of homophily are thriving in MySpace networks of active public connections, gender homophily has completely disappeared. Finally, the method used has wide potential for investigating and partially tracking homophily in society, providing early warning of socially divisive trends.
-
Thelwall, M.; Delgado, M.M.: Arts and humanities research evaluation : no metrics please, just data (2015)
0.04
0.03586427 = product of:
0.10759281 = sum of:
0.10759281 = weight(_text_:systematic in 2313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10759281 = score(doc=2313,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.3788859 = fieldWeight in 2313, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2313)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose The purpose of this paper is to make an explicit case for the use of data with contextual information as evidence in arts and humanities research evaluations rather than systematic metrics. Design/methodology/approach A survey of the strengths and limitations of citation-based indicators is combined with evidence about existing uses of wider impact data in the arts and humanities, with particular reference to the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework. Findings Data are already used as impact evidence in the arts and humanities but this practice should become more widespread. Practical implications Arts and humanities researchers should be encouraged to think creatively about the kinds of data that they may be able to generate in support of the value of their research and should not rely upon standardised metrics. Originality/value This paper combines practices emerging in the arts and humanities with research evaluation from a scientometric perspective to generate new recommendations.
-
Thelwall, M.: Book genre and author gender : romance > paranormal-romance to autobiography > memoir (2017)
0.04
0.03586427 = product of:
0.10759281 = sum of:
0.10759281 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10759281 = score(doc=3598,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.3788859 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Although gender differences are known to exist in the publishing industry and in reader preferences, there is little public systematic data about them. This article uses evidence from the book-based social website Goodreads to provide a large scale analysis of 50 major English book genres based on author genders. The results show gender differences in authorship in almost all categories and gender differences the level of interest in, and ratings of, books in a minority of categories. Perhaps surprisingly in this context, there is not a clear gender-based relationship between the success of an author and their prevalence within a genre. The unexpected almost universal authorship gender differences should give new impetus to investigations of the importance of gender in fiction and the success of minority genders in some genres should encourage publishers and librarians to take their work seriously, except perhaps for most male-authored chick-lit.
-
Thelwall, M.: ¬A comparison of link and URL citation counting (2011)
0.03
0.029886894 = product of:
0.08966068 = sum of:
0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 4533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08966068 = score(doc=4533,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 4533, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4533)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - Link analysis is an established topic within webometrics. It normally uses counts of links between sets of web sites or to sets of web sites. These link counts are derived from web crawlers or commercial search engines with the latter being the only alternative for some investigations. This paper compares link counts with URL citation counts in order to assess whether the latter could be a replacement for the former if the major search engines withdraw their advanced hyperlink search facilities. Design/methodology/approach - URL citation counts are compared with link counts for a variety of data sets used in previous webometric studies. Findings - The results show a high degree of correlation between the two but with URL citations being much less numerous, at least outside academia and business. Research limitations/implications - The results cover a small selection of 15 case studies and so the findings are only indicative. Significant differences between results indicate that the difference between link counts and URL citation counts will vary between webometric studies. Practical implications - Should link searches be withdrawn, then link analyses of less well linked non-academic, non-commercial sites would be seriously weakened, although citations based on e-mail addresses could help to make citations more numerous than links for some business and academic contexts. Originality/value - This is the first systematic study of the difference between link counts and URL citation counts in a variety of contexts and it shows that there are significant differences between the two.
-
Haustein, S.; Peters, I.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.; Larivière, V.: Tweeting biomedicine : an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature (2014)
0.03
0.029886894 = product of:
0.08966068 = sum of:
0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08966068 = score(doc=1229,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Data collected by social media platforms have been introduced as new sources for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation analysis. Data generated from social media activities can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This article aims to provide systematic evidence about how often Twitter is used to disseminate information about journal articles in the biomedical sciences. The analysis is based on 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science and published between 2010 and 2012. The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed and compared to citations to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter and how far tweets correlate with citation impact. With less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general but differs between journals and specialties. Correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework using the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media-based metrics.
-
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
0.009384007 = product of:
0.02815202 = sum of:
0.02815202 = product of:
0.05630404 = sum of:
0.05630404 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05630404 = score(doc=1676,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.29604656 = fieldWeight in 1676, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1676)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
0.008975455 = product of:
0.026926363 = sum of:
0.026926363 = product of:
0.053852726 = sum of:
0.053852726 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053852726 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.01
0.007933255 = product of:
0.023799766 = sum of:
0.023799766 = product of:
0.04759953 = sum of:
0.04759953 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04759953 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
0.0067315903 = product of:
0.02019477 = sum of:
0.02019477 = product of:
0.04038954 = sum of:
0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04038954 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
0.0067315903 = product of:
0.02019477 = sum of:
0.02019477 = product of:
0.04038954 = sum of:
0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04038954 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.01
0.0067315903 = product of:
0.02019477 = sum of:
0.02019477 = product of:
0.04038954 = sum of:
0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04038954 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.01
0.0067315903 = product of:
0.02019477 = sum of:
0.02019477 = product of:
0.04038954 = sum of:
0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04038954 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
-
Thelwall, M.: Extracting macroscopic information from Web links (2001)
0.01
0.0067028617 = product of:
0.020108584 = sum of:
0.020108584 = product of:
0.04021717 = sum of:
0.04021717 = weight(_text_:indexing in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04021717 = score(doc=6851,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 6851, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6851)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Thelwall, M.; Vaughan, L.; Björneborn, L.: Webometrics (2004)
0.01
0.0067028617 = product of:
0.020108584 = sum of:
0.020108584 = product of:
0.04021717 = sum of:
0.04021717 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04021717 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations : a multi-discipline exploratory analysis (2007)
0.01
0.0067028617 = product of:
0.020108584 = sum of:
0.020108584 = product of:
0.04021717 = sum of:
0.04021717 = weight(_text_:indexing in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04021717 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google book search : citation analysis for social science and the humanities (2009)
0.01
0.0067028617 = product of:
0.020108584 = sum of:
0.020108584 = product of:
0.04021717 = sum of:
0.04021717 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04021717 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
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
0.0067028617 = product of:
0.020108584 = sum of:
0.020108584 = product of:
0.04021717 = sum of:
0.04021717 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04021717 = score(doc=3966,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
-
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
0.0067028617 = product of:
0.020108584 = sum of:
0.020108584 = product of:
0.04021717 = sum of:
0.04021717 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04021717 = score(doc=1033,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 1033, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1033)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
