-
Thelwall, M.: Web indicators for research evaluation : a practical guide (2016)
0.01
0.006995385 = product of:
0.02798154 = sum of:
0.02798154 = product of:
0.05596308 = sum of:
0.05596308 = weight(_text_:software in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05596308 = score(doc=3384,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.045514934 = queryNorm
0.30993375 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
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.
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
0.0061666453 = product of:
0.024666581 = sum of:
0.024666581 = product of:
0.049333163 = sum of:
0.049333163 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049333163 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045514934 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Prabowo, R.: Identifying and characterizing public science-related fears from RSS feeds (2007)
0.01
0.0059357807 = product of:
0.023743123 = sum of:
0.023743123 = product of:
0.047486246 = sum of:
0.047486246 = weight(_text_:software in 137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047486246 = score(doc=137,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.045514934 = queryNorm
0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 137, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=137)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- A feature of modern democracies is public mistrust of scientists and the politicization of science policy, e.g., concerning stem cell research and genetically modified food. While the extent of this mistrust is debatable, its political influence is tangible. Hence, science policy researchers and science policy makers need early warning of issues that resonate with a wide public so that they can make timely and informed decisions. In this article, a semi-automatic method for identifying significant public science-related concerns from a corpus of Internet-based RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds is described and shown to be an improvement on a previous similar system because of the introduction of feedbased aggregation. In addition, both the RSS corpus and the concept of public science-related fears are deconstructed, revealing hidden complexity. This article also provides evidence that genetically modified organisms and stem cell research were the two major policyrelevant science concern issues, although mobile phone radiation and software security also generated significant interest.
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.01
0.0054505956 = product of:
0.021802383 = sum of:
0.021802383 = product of:
0.043604765 = sum of:
0.043604765 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043604765 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045514934 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011)
0.00
0.0046249838 = product of:
0.018499935 = sum of:
0.018499935 = product of:
0.03699987 = sum of:
0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03699987 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045514934 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.00
0.0046249838 = product of:
0.018499935 = sum of:
0.018499935 = product of:
0.03699987 = sum of:
0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03699987 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045514934 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.00
0.0046249838 = product of:
0.018499935 = sum of:
0.018499935 = product of:
0.03699987 = sum of:
0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03699987 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045514934 = 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
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.00
0.0046249838 = product of:
0.018499935 = sum of:
0.018499935 = product of:
0.03699987 = sum of:
0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03699987 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045514934 = 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
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.00
0.0038541534 = product of:
0.015416614 = sum of:
0.015416614 = product of:
0.030833228 = sum of:
0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030833228 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045514934 = 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.
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.00
0.0038541534 = product of:
0.015416614 = sum of:
0.015416614 = product of:
0.030833228 = sum of:
0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030833228 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045514934 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.00
0.0038541534 = product of:
0.015416614 = sum of:
0.015416614 = product of:
0.030833228 = sum of:
0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030833228 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045514934 = 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
-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.00
0.0038541534 = product of:
0.015416614 = sum of:
0.015416614 = product of:
0.030833228 = sum of:
0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030833228 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045514934 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.00
0.0038541534 = product of:
0.015416614 = sum of:
0.015416614 = product of:
0.030833228 = sum of:
0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030833228 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045514934 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.00
0.0038541534 = product of:
0.015416614 = sum of:
0.015416614 = product of:
0.030833228 = sum of:
0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030833228 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045514934 = 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
-
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)
0.00
0.0038541534 = product of:
0.015416614 = sum of:
0.015416614 = product of:
0.030833228 = sum of:
0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030833228 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045514934 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
