Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  1. Thelwall, M.: Web impact factors and search engine coverage (2000) 0.02 
    0.01738785 = product of:
  0.08693925 = sum of:
    0.08693925 = weight(_text_:index in 4539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08693925 = score(doc=4539,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 4539, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4539)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Search engines index only a proportion of the web and this proportion is not determined randomly but by following algorithms that take into account the properties that impact factors measure. A survey was conducted in order to test the coverage of search engines and to decide thether their partial coverage is indeed an obstacle to using them to calculate web impact factors. The results indicate that search engine coverage, even of large national domains is extremely uneven and would be likely to lead to misleading calculations
  2. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: ¬An automatic method for extracting citations from Google Books (2015) 0.02 
    0.015368836 = product of:
  0.07684418 = sum of:
    0.07684418 = weight(_text_:index in 1658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07684418 = score(doc=1658,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 1658, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1658)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Recent studies have shown that counting citations from books can help scholarly impact assessment and that Google Books (GB) is a useful source of such citation counts, despite its lack of a public citation index. Searching GB for citations produces approximate matches, however, and so its raw results need time-consuming human filtering. In response, this article introduces a method to automatically remove false and irrelevant matches from GB citation searches in addition to introducing refinements to a previous GB manual citation extraction method. The method was evaluated by manual checking of sampled GB results and comparing citations to about 14,500 monographs in the Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index (BKCI) against automatically extracted citations from GB across 24 subject areas. GB citations were 103% to 137% as numerous as BKCI citations in the humanities, except for tourism (72%) and linguistics (91%), 46% to 85% in social sciences, but only 8% to 53% in the sciences. In all cases, however, GB had substantially more citing books than did BKCI, with BKCI's results coming predominantly from journal articles. Moderate correlations between the GB and BKCI citation counts in social sciences and humanities, with most BKCI results coming from journal articles rather than books, suggests that they could measure the different aspects of impact, however.
  3. Thelwall, M.: Bibliometrics to webometrics (2009) 0.02 
    0.015214371 = product of:
  0.07607185 = sum of:
    0.07607185 = weight(_text_:index in 4239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07607185 = score(doc=4239,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.33795667 = fieldWeight in 4239, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4239)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Bibliometrics has changed out of all recognition since 1958; becoming established as a field, being taught widely in library and information science schools, and being at the core of a number of science evaluation research groups around the world. This was all made possible by the work of Eugene Garfield and his Science Citation Index. This article reviews the distance that bibliometrics has travelled since 1958 by comparing early bibliometrics with current practice, and by giving an overview of a range of recent developments, such as patent analysis, national research evaluation exercises, visualization techniques, new applications, online citation indexes, and the creation of digital libraries. Webometrics, a modern, fast-growing offshoot of bibliometrics, is reviewed in detail. Finally, future prospects are discussed with regard to both bibliometrics and webometrics.
  4. Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006) 0.01 
    0.011166576 = product of:
  0.05583288 = sum of:
    0.05583288 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05583288 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    4.12.2006 12:12:22
  5. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.; Oppenheim, C.: Variations between subjects in the extent to which the social sciences have become more interdisciplinary (2011) 0.01 
    0.010867408 = product of:
  0.054337036 = sum of:
    0.054337036 = weight(_text_:index in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054337036 = score(doc=4465,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Increasing interdisciplinarity has been a policy objective since the 1990s, promoted by many governments and funding agencies, but the question is: How deeply has this affected the social sciences? Although numerous articles have suggested that research has become more interdisciplinary, yet no study has compared the extent to which the interdisciplinarity of different social science subjects has changed. To address this gap, changes in the level of interdisciplinarity since 1980 are investigated for subjects with many articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), using the percentage of cross-disciplinary citing documents (PCDCD) to evaluate interdisciplinarity. For the 14 SSCI subjects investigated, the median level of interdisciplinarity, as measured using cross-disciplinary citations, declined from 1980 to 1990, but rose sharply between 1990 and 2000, confirming previous research. This increase was not fully matched by an increase in the percentage of articles that were assigned to more than one subject category. Nevertheless, although on average the social sciences have recently become more interdisciplinary, the extent of this change varies substantially from subject to subject. The SSCI subject with the largest increase in interdisciplinarity between 1990 and 2000 was Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) but there is evidence that the level of interdisciplinarity of IS&LS increased less quickly during the first decade of this century.
  6. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Patent citation analysis with Google (2017) 0.01 
    0.010867408 = product of:
  0.054337036 = sum of:
    0.054337036 = weight(_text_:index in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054337036 = score(doc=3317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Citations from patents to scientific publications provide useful evidence about the commercial impact of academic research, but automatically searchable databases are needed to exploit this connection for large-scale patent citation evaluations. Google covers multiple different international patent office databases but does not index patent citations or allow automatic searches. In response, this article introduces a semiautomatic indirect method via Bing to extract and filter patent citations from Google to academic papers with an overall precision of 98%. The method was evaluated with 322,192 science and engineering Scopus articles from every second year for the period 1996-2012. Although manual Google Patent searches give more results, especially for articles with many patent citations, the difference is not large enough to be a major problem. Within Biomedical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Pharmacology & Pharmaceutics, 7% to 10% of Scopus articles had at least one patent citation but other fields had far fewer, so patent citation analysis is only relevant for a minority of publications. Low but positive correlations between Google Patent citations and Scopus citations across all fields suggest that traditional citation counts cannot substitute for patent citations when evaluating research.
  7. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009) 0.01 
    0.009869952 = product of:
  0.04934976 = sum of:
    0.04934976 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04934976 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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
  8. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011) 0.01 
    0.008374932 = product of:
  0.04187466 = sum of:
    0.04187466 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04187466 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:27:06
  9. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.01 
    0.008374932 = product of:
  0.04187466 = sum of:
    0.04187466 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04187466 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    19. 3.2016 12:22:00
  10. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.01 
    0.008374932 = product of:
  0.04187466 = sum of:
    0.04187466 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04187466 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    16.11.2016 11:07:22
  11. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.01 
    0.008374932 = product of:
  0.04187466 = sum of:
    0.04187466 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04187466 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    28. 7.2018 10:00:22
  12. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.01 
    0.00697911 = product of:
  0.03489555 = sum of:
    0.03489555 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03489555 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
  13. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010) 0.01 
    0.00697911 = product of:
  0.03489555 = sum of:
    0.03489555 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03489555 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:29:23
  14. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.01 
    0.00697911 = product of:
  0.03489555 = sum of:
    0.03489555 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03489555 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    6. 4.2012 18:16:22
  15. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.01 
    0.00697911 = product of:
  0.03489555 = sum of:
    0.03489555 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03489555 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  16. Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017) 0.01 
    0.00697911 = product of:
  0.03489555 = sum of:
    0.03489555 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03489555 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  17. Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020) 0.01 
    0.00697911 = product of:
  0.03489555 = sum of:
    0.03489555 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03489555 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  18. 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 
    0.00697911 = product of:
  0.03489555 = sum of:
    0.03489555 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03489555 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:11:50

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 17
  • d 1

Themes