Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04748466 = product of:
  0.09496932 = sum of:
    0.09496932 = product of:
      0.18993863 = sum of:
        0.18993863 = weight(_text_:1.5 in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18993863 = score(doc=3760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4074348 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.43879 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            0.4661817 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.43879 = idf(docFreq=25, 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and technology (53%) and medicine and health (47%) stories were based on academic research, rather than otherwise unpublished information, suggesting that researchers have chosen a lower-quality secondary source for their citations.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.

0.008176792 = product of:
  0.016353585 = sum of:
    0.016353585 = product of:
      0.03270717 = sum of:
        0.03270717 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03270717 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16907248 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.

0.008176792 = product of:
  0.016353585 = sum of:
    0.016353585 = product of:
      0.03270717 = sum of:
        0.03270717 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03270717 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16907248 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.008176792 = product of:
  0.016353585 = sum of:
    0.016353585 = product of:
      0.03270717 = sum of:
        0.03270717 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03270717 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16907248 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048281185 = 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