Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010) 0.01 
    0.005609659 = product of:
  0.016828977 = sum of:
    0.016828977 = product of:
      0.033657953 = sum of:
        0.033657953 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033657953 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:29:23
  12. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.01 
    0.005609659 = product of:
  0.016828977 = sum of:
    0.016828977 = product of:
      0.033657953 = sum of:
        0.033657953 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033657953 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    6. 4.2012 18:16:22
  13. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.01 
    0.005609659 = product of:
  0.016828977 = sum of:
    0.016828977 = product of:
      0.033657953 = sum of:
        0.033657953 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033657953 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors

Themes