Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.032274283 = product of:
  0.16137141 = sum of:
    0.16137141 = weight(_text_:views in 1234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16137141 = score(doc=1234,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.55259997 = fieldWeight in 1234, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1234)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.032274283 = product of:
  0.16137141 = sum of:
    0.16137141 = weight(_text_:views in 3349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16137141 = score(doc=3349,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.55259997 = fieldWeight in 3349, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3349)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The large multidisciplinary academic social website ResearchGate aims to help academics to connect with each other and to publicize their work. Despite its popularity, little is known about the age and discipline of the articles uploaded and viewed in the site and whether publication statistics from the site could be useful impact indicators. In response, this article assesses samples of ResearchGate articles uploaded at specific dates, comparing their views in the site to their Mendeley readers and Scopus-indexed citations. This analysis shows that ResearchGate is dominated by recent articles, which attract about three times as many views as older articles. ResearchGate has uneven coverage of scholarship, with the arts and humanities, health professions, and decision sciences poorly represented and some fields receiving twice as many views per article as others. View counts for uploaded articles have low to moderate positive correlations with both Scopus citations and Mendeley readers, which is consistent with them tending to reflect a wider audience than Scopus-publishing scholars. Hence, for articles uploaded to the site, view counts may give a genuinely new audience indicator.

0.0068507106 = product of:
  0.034253553 = sum of:
    0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034253553 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = 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.

0.0068507106 = product of:
  0.034253553 = sum of:
    0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034253553 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = 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

0.0068507106 = product of:
  0.034253553 = sum of:
    0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034253553 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = 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