Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Academia.edu : Social network or Academic Network? (2014) 0.03
```
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.
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ResearchGate articles : age, discipline, audience size, and impact (2017) 0.03
```
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.
Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.: Scholars on soap boxes : science communication and dissemination in TED videos (2013) 0.03
```
0.02635184 = product of:
  0.1317592 = sum of:
    0.1317592 = weight(_text_:views in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1317592 = score(doc=678,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.45119599 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
```
Abstract

Online videos provide a novel, and often interactive, platform for the popularization of science. One successful collection is hosted on the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) website. This study uses a range of bibliometric (citation) and webometric (usage and bookmarking) indicators to examine TED videos in order to provide insights into the type and scope of their impact. The results suggest that TED Talks impact primarily the public sphere, with about three-quarters of a billion total views, rather than the academic realm. Differences were found among broad disciplinary areas, with art and design videos having generally lower levels of impact but science and technology videos generating otherwise average impact for TED. Many of the metrics were only loosely related, but there was a general consensus about the most popular videos as measured through views or comments on YouTube and the TED site. Moreover, most videos were found in at least one online syllabus and videos in online syllabi tended to be more viewed, discussed, and blogged. Less-liked videos generated more discussion, although this may be because they are more controversial. Science and technology videos presented by academics were more liked than those by nonacademics, showing that academics are not disadvantaged in this new media environment.

Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006) 0.01

0.010961137 = product of:
  0.054805685 = sum of:
    0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054805685 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = 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

Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009) 0.01
```
0.009688368 = product of:
  0.04844184 = sum of:
    0.04844184 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04844184 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = 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

Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011) 0.01

0.008220852 = product of:
  0.04110426 = sum of:
    0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04110426 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = 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

Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.01

0.008220852 = product of:
  0.04110426 = sum of:
    0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04110426 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = 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

Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.01

0.008220852 = product of:
  0.04110426 = sum of:
    0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04110426 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = 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

Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.01

0.008220852 = product of:
  0.04110426 = sum of:
    0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04110426 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = 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

Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.01
```
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.

Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010) 0.01

0.0068507106 = product of:
  0.034253553 = sum of:
    0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034253553 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = 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

Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.01

0.0068507106 = product of:
  0.034253553 = sum of:
    0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034253553 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = 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

Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.01

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

Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017) 0.01

0.0068507106 = product of:
  0.034253553 = sum of:
    0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034253553 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = 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

Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020) 0.01

0.0068507106 = product of:
  0.034253553 = sum of:
    0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034253553 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = 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

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

0.0068507106 = 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

Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Years

Languages

Themes