Search (21 results, page 1 of 2)

0.028342828 = product of:
  0.11337131 = sum of:
    0.11337131 = weight(_text_:master in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11337131 = score(doc=3384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3116585 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5848994 = idf(docFreq=165, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.36376774 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.5848994 = idf(docFreq=165, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In recent years there has been an increasing demand for research evaluation within universities and other research-based organisations. In parallel, there has been an increasing recognition that traditional citation-based indicators are not able to reflect the societal impacts of research and are slow to appear. This has led to the creation of new indicators for different types of research impact as well as timelier indicators, mainly derived from the Web. These indicators have been called altmetrics, webometrics or just web metrics. This book describes and evaluates a range of web indicators for aspects of societal or scholarly impact, discusses the theory and practice of using and evaluating web indicators for research assessment and outlines practical strategies for obtaining many web indicators. In addition to describing impact indicators for traditional scholarly outputs, such as journal articles and monographs, it also covers indicators for videos, datasets, software and other non-standard scholarly outputs. The book describes strategies to analyse web indicators for individual publications as well as to compare the impacts of groups of publications. The practical part of the book includes descriptions of how to use the free software Webometric Analyst to gather and analyse web data. This book is written for information science undergraduate and Master?s students that are learning about alternative indicators or scientometrics as well as Ph.D. students and other researchers and practitioners using indicators to help assess research impact or to study scholarly communication.

0.015146547 = product of:
  0.060586188 = sum of:
    0.060586188 = weight(_text_:reference in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060586188 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.31464687 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Internet reference services quarterly. 10(2005) nos.3/4

0.0130108325 = product of:
  0.05204333 = sum of:
    0.05204333 = product of:
      0.10408666 = sum of:
        0.10408666 = weight(_text_:file in 838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10408666 = score(doc=838,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25368783 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.41029426 = fieldWeight in 838, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=838)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of LexiURL as a Web intelligence tool for collecting and analysing links to digital libraries, focusing specifically on the National electronic Library for Health (NeLH). Design/methodology/approach - The Web intelligence techniques in this study are a combination of link analysis (web structure mining), web server log file analysis (web usage mining), and text analysis (web content mining), utilizing the power of commercial search engines and drawing upon the information science fields of bibliometrics and webometrics. LexiURL is a computer program designed to calculate summary statistics for lists of links or URLs. Its output is a series of standard reports, for example listing and counting all of the different domain names in the data. Findings - Link data, when analysed together with user transaction log files (i.e. Web referring domains) can provide insights into who is using a digital library and when, and who could be using the digital library if they are "surfing" a particular part of the Web; in this case any site that is linked to or colinked with the NeLH. This study found that the NeLH was embedded in a multifaceted Web context, including many governmental, educational, commercial and organisational sites, with the most interesting being sites from the.edu domain, representing American Universities. Not many links directed to the NeLH were followed on September 25, 2005 (the date of the log file analysis and link extraction analysis), which means that users who access the digital library have been arriving at the site via only a few select links, bookmarks and search engine searches, or non-electronic sources. Originality/value - A number of studies concerning digital library users have been carried out using log file analysis as a research tool. Log files focus on real-time user transactions; while LexiURL can be used to extract links and colinks associated with a digital library's growing Web network. This Web network is not recognized often enough, and can be a useful indication of where potential users are surfing, even if they have not yet specifically visited the NeLH site.

0.012982754 = product of:
  0.051931016 = sum of:
    0.051931016 = weight(_text_:reference in 2313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051931016 = score(doc=2313,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 2313, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2313)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.012982754 = product of:
  0.051931016 = sum of:
    0.051931016 = weight(_text_:reference in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051931016 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In theory, articles can attract readers on the social reference sharing site Mendeley before they can attract citations, so Mendeley altmetrics could provide early indications of article impact. This article investigates the influence of time on the number of Mendeley readers of an article through a theoretical discussion and an investigation into the relationship between counts of readers of, and citations to, 4 general library and information science (LIS) journals. For this discipline, it takes about 7 years for articles to attract as many Scopus citations as Mendeley readers, and after this the Spearman correlation between readers and citers is stable at about 0.6 for all years. This suggests that Mendeley readership counts may be useful impact indicators for both newer and older articles. The lack of dates for individual Mendeley article readers and an unknown bias toward more recent articles mean that readership data should be normalized individually by year, however, before making any comparisons between articles published in different years.

0.010818963 = product of:
  0.04327585 = sum of:
    0.04327585 = weight(_text_:reference in 1234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04327585 = score(doc=1234,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 1234, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1234)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Academic social network sites Academia.edu and ResearchGate, and reference sharing sites Mendeley, Bibsonomy, Zotero, and CiteULike, give scholars the ability to publicize their research outputs and connect with each other. With millions of users, these are a significant addition to the scholarly communication and academic information-seeking eco-structure. There is thus a need to understand the role that they play and the changes, if any, that they can make to the dynamics of academic careers. This article investigates attributes of philosophy scholars on Academia.edu, introducing a median-based, time-normalizing method to adjust for time delays in joining the site. In comparison to students, faculty tend to attract more profile views but female philosophers did not attract more profile views than did males, suggesting that academic capital drives philosophy uses of the site more than does friendship and networking. Secondary analyses of law, history, and computer science confirmed the faculty advantage (in terms of higher profile views) except for females in law and females in computer science. There was also a female advantage for both faculty and students in law and computer science as well as for history students. Hence, Academia.edu overall seems to reflect a hybrid of scholarly norms (the faculty advantage) and a female advantage that is suggestive of general social networking norms. Finally, traditional bibliometric measures did not correlate with any Academia.edu metrics for philosophers, perhaps because more senior academics use the site less extensively or because of the range informal scholarly activities that cannot be measured by bibliometric methods.

0.010818963 = product of:
  0.04327585 = sum of:
    0.04327585 = weight(_text_:reference in 2190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04327585 = score(doc=2190,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 2190, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2190)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Although there is evidence that counting the readers of an article in the social reference site, Mendeley, may help to capture its research impact, the extent to which this is true for different scientific fields is unknown. In this study, we compare Mendeley readership counts with citations for different social sciences and humanities disciplines. The overall correlation between Mendeley readership counts and citations for the social sciences was higher than for the humanities. Low and medium correlations between Mendeley bookmarks and citation counts in all the investigated disciplines suggest that these measures reflect different aspects of research impact. Mendeley data were also used to discover patterns of information flow between scientific fields. Comparing information flows based on Mendeley bookmarking data and cross-disciplinary citation analysis for the disciplines revealed substantial similarities and some differences. Thus, the evidence from this study suggests that Mendeley readership data could be used to help capture knowledge transfer across scientific disciplines, especially for people that read but do not author articles, as well as giving impact evidence at an earlier stage than is possible with citation counts.

0.009389759 = product of:
  0.037559036 = sum of:
    0.037559036 = product of:
      0.07511807 = sum of:
        0.07511807 = weight(_text_:file in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07511807 = score(doc=1331,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25368783 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.29610437 = fieldWeight in 1331, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1331)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Some curricula vitae (web CVs) of academics on the web, including homepages and publication lists, link to open-access (OA) articles, resources, abstracts in publishers' websites, or academic discussions, helping to disseminate research. To assess how common such practices are and whether they vary by discipline, gender, and country, the authors conducted a large-scale e-mail survey of astronomy and astrophysics, public health, environmental engineering, and philosophy across 15 European countries and analyzed hyperlinks from web CVs of academics. About 60% of the 2,154 survey responses reported having a web CV or something similar, and there were differences between disciplines, genders, and countries. A follow-up outlink analysis of 2,700 web CVs found that a third had at least one outlink to an OA target, typically a public eprint archive or an individual self-archived file. This proportion was considerably higher in astronomy (48%) and philosophy (37%) than in environmental engineering (29%) and public health (21%). There were also differences in linking to publishers' websites, resources, and discussions. Perhaps most important, however, the amount of linking to OA publications seems to be much lower than allowed by publishers and journals, suggesting that many opportunities for disseminating full-text research online are being missed, especially in disciplines without established repositories. Moreover, few academics seem to be exploiting their CVs to link to discussions, resources, or article abstracts, which seems to be another missed opportunity for publicizing research.

0.006412463 = product of:
  0.025649851 = sum of:
    0.025649851 = product of:
      0.051299702 = sum of:
        0.051299702 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051299702 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

0.00566787 = product of:
  0.02267148 = sum of:
    0.02267148 = product of:
      0.04534296 = sum of:
        0.04534296 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04534296 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.004809347 = product of:
  0.019237388 = sum of:
    0.019237388 = product of:
      0.038474776 = sum of:
        0.038474776 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038474776 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:27:06

0.004809347 = product of:
  0.019237388 = sum of:
    0.019237388 = product of:
      0.038474776 = sum of:
        0.038474776 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038474776 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

0.004809347 = product of:
  0.019237388 = sum of:
    0.019237388 = product of:
      0.038474776 = sum of:
        0.038474776 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038474776 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

0.004809347 = product of:
  0.019237388 = sum of:
    0.019237388 = product of:
      0.038474776 = sum of:
        0.038474776 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038474776 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

0.0040077893 = product of:
  0.016031157 = sum of:
    0.016031157 = product of:
      0.032062314 = sum of:
        0.032062314 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032062314 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0040077893 = product of:
  0.016031157 = sum of:
    0.016031157 = product of:
      0.032062314 = sum of:
        0.032062314 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032062314 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:29:23

0.0040077893 = product of:
  0.016031157 = sum of:
    0.016031157 = product of:
      0.032062314 = sum of:
        0.032062314 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032062314 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

6. 4.2012 18:16:22

0.0040077893 = product of:
  0.016031157 = sum of:
    0.016031157 = product of:
      0.032062314 = sum of:
        0.032062314 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032062314 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0040077893 = product of:
  0.016031157 = sum of:
    0.016031157 = product of:
      0.032062314 = sum of:
        0.032062314 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032062314 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0040077893 = product of:
  0.016031157 = sum of:
    0.016031157 = product of:
      0.032062314 = sum of:
        0.032062314 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032062314 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22