Search (113 results, page 1 of 6)

0.03985407 = product of:
  0.13284689 = sum of:
    0.010881756 = weight(_text_:information in 674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010881756 = score(doc=674,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 674, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=674)
    0.018654086 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018654086 = score(doc=674,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 674, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=674)
    0.103311054 = weight(_text_:ranking in 674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.103311054 = score(doc=674,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.62106377 = fieldWeight in 674, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=674)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)

Abstract

Introduces several new versions of PageRank (the link based Web page ranking algorithm), based on an information science perspective on the concept of the Web document. Although the Web page is the typical indivisible unit of information in search engine results and most Web information retrieval algorithms, other research has suggested that aggregating pages based on directories and domains gives promising alternatives, particularly when Web links are the object of study. The new algorithms introduced based on these alternatives were used to rank four sets of Web pages. The ranking results were compared with human subjects' rankings. The results of the tests were somewhat inconclusive: the new approach worked well for the set that includes pages from different Web sites; however, it does not work well in ranking pages that are from the same site. It seems that the new algorithms may be effective for some tasks but not for others, especially when only low numbers of links are involved or the pages to be ranked are from the same site or directory.

0.015383491 = product of:
  0.076917455 = sum of:
    0.0073296824 = weight(_text_:information in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0073296824 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
    0.069587775 = weight(_text_:ranking in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069587775 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.4183332 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Conducting a literature review is an important activity for postgraduates and many undergraduates. Librarians can play an important role, directing students to digital libraries, compiling online subject reSource lists, and educating about the need to evaluate the quality of online resources. In order to conduct an effective literature search in a new area, however, in some subjects it is necessary to gain basic topic knowledge, including specialist vocabularies. Google's link-based page ranking algorithm makes this search engine an ideal tool for finding specialist topic introductory material, particularly in computer science, and so librarians should be teaching this as part of a strategic literature review approach.

0.013225998 = product of:
  0.044086657 = sum of:
    0.007404097 = weight(_text_:information in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007404097 = score(doc=3384,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
    0.015545071 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015545071 = score(doc=3384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
    0.021137487 = product of:
      0.042274974 = sum of:
        0.042274974 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042274974 = score(doc=3384,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.327711 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)

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.

Series

Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services; 52

0.01318585 = product of:
  0.06592925 = sum of:
    0.0062825847 = weight(_text_:information in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062825847 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
    0.059646662 = weight(_text_:ranking in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059646662 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.35857132 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Patents sometimes cite webpages either as general background to the problem being addressed or to identify prior publications that limit the scope of the patent granted. Counts of the number of patents citing an organization's website may therefore provide an indicator of its technological capacity or relevance. This article introduces methods to extract URL citations from patents and evaluates the usefulness of counts of patent web citations as a technology indicator. An analysis of patents citing 200 US universities or 177 UK universities found computer science and engineering departments to be frequently cited, as well as research-related webpages, such as Wikipedia, YouTube, or the Internet Archive. Overall, however, patent URL citations seem to be frequent enough to be useful for ranking major US and the top few UK universities if popular hosted subdomains are filtered out, but the hit count estimates on the first search engine results page should not be relied upon for accuracy.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.1967-1974

0.011192325 = product of:
  0.055961624 = sum of:
    0.005235487 = weight(_text_:information in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005235487 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
    0.050726138 = sum of:
      0.02989292 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02989292 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
            0.030753274 = queryNorm
          0.23172665 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
      0.02083322 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02083322 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.030753274 = 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(2/10)

Abstract

Purpose Mendeley reader counts have been proposed as early indicators for the impact of academic publications. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether there are enough Mendeley readers for research evaluation purposes during the month when an article is first published. Design/methodology/approach Average Mendeley reader counts were compared to the average Scopus citation counts for 104,520 articles from ten disciplines during the second half of 2016. Findings Articles attracted, on average, between 0.1 and 0.8 Mendeley readers per article in the month in which they first appeared in Scopus. This is about ten times more than the average Scopus citation count. Research limitations/implications Other disciplines may use Mendeley more or less than the ten investigated here. The results are dependent on Scopus's indexing practices, and Mendeley reader counts can be manipulated and have national and seniority biases. Practical implications Mendeley reader counts during the month of publication are more powerful than Scopus citations for comparing the average impacts of groups of documents but are not high enough to differentiate between the impacts of typical individual articles. Originality/value This is the first multi-disciplinary and systematic analysis of Mendeley reader counts from the publication month of an article.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.2, S.174-183

0.007991644 = product of:
  0.039958216 = sum of:
    0.010365736 = weight(_text_:information in 4239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010365736 = score(doc=4239,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 4239, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4239)
    0.029592482 = product of:
      0.059184965 = sum of:
        0.059184965 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 4239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059184965 = score(doc=4239,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.4587954 = fieldWeight in 4239, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

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.

Source

Information science in transition, Ed.: A. Gilchrist

0.007452524 = product of:
  0.03726262 = sum of:
    0.010881756 = weight(_text_:information in 2571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010881756 = score(doc=2571,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2571, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2571)
    0.026380861 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026380861 = score(doc=2571,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2571, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2571)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

A common task in both Webmetrics and Web information retrieval is to identify a set of Web pages or sites that are similar in content. In this paper we assess the extent to which links, colinks and couplings can be used to identify similar Web sites. As an experiment, a random sample of 500 pairs of domains from the UK academic Web were taken and human assessments of site similarity, based upon content type, were compared against ratings for the three concepts. The results show that using a combination of all three gives the highest probability of identifying similar sites, but surprisingly this was only a marginal improvement over using links alone. Another unexpected result was that high values for either colink counts or couplings were associated with only a small increased likelihood of similarity. The principal advantage of using couplings and colinks was found to be greater coverage in terms of a much larger number of pairs of sites being connected by these measures, instead of increased probability of similarity. In information retrieval terminology, this is improved recall rather than improved precision.

Source

Information processing and management. 40(2004) no.3, S.515-526

0.0070531555 = product of:
  0.035265777 = sum of:
    0.008884916 = weight(_text_:information in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008884916 = score(doc=10,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
    0.026380861 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026380861 = score(doc=10,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Information Retrieval (IR) research typically evaluates search systems in terms of the standard precision, recall and F-measures to weight the relative importance of precision and recall (e.g. van Rijsbergen, 1979). All of these assess the extent to which the system returns good matches for a query. In contrast, webometric measures are designed specifically for web search engines and are designed to monitor changes in results over time and various aspects of the internal logic of the way in which search engine select the results to be returned. This chapter introduces a range of webometric measurements and illustrates them with case studies of Google, Bing and Yahoo! This is a very fertile area for simple and complex new investigations into search engine results.

Source

Innovations in information retrieval: perspectives for theory and practice. Eds.: A. Foster, u. P. Rafferty

0.006329514 = product of:
  0.03164757 = sum of:
    0.0062825847 = weight(_text_:information in 2313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062825847 = score(doc=2313,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2313, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2313)
    0.025364986 = product of:
      0.05072997 = sum of:
        0.05072997 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 2313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05072997 = score(doc=2313,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.3932532 = fieldWeight in 2313, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2313)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

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.

0.006329514 = product of:
  0.03164757 = sum of:
    0.0062825847 = weight(_text_:information in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062825847 = score(doc=2768,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
    0.025364986 = product of:
      0.05072997 = sum of:
        0.05072997 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05072997 = score(doc=2768,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.3932532 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Although citation counts are often used to evaluate the research impact of academic publications, they are problematic for books that aim for educational or cultural impact. To fill this gap, this article assesses whether a number of simple metrics derived from Amazon.com reviews of academic books could provide evidence of their impact. Based on a set of 2,739 academic monographs from 2008 and a set of 1,305 best-selling books in 15 Amazon.com academic subject categories, the existence of significant but low or moderate correlations between citations and numbers of reviews, combined with other evidence, suggests that online book reviews tend to reflect the wider popularity of a book rather than its academic impact, although there are substantial disciplinary differences. Metrics based on online reviews are therefore recommended for the evaluation of books that aim at a wide audience inside or outside academia when it is important to capture the broader impacts of educational or cultural activities and when they cannot be manipulated in advance of the evaluation.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.566-581

0.0058776294 = product of:
  0.029388146 = sum of:
    0.007404097 = weight(_text_:information in 4450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007404097 = score(doc=4450,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4450, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4450)
    0.02198405 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02198405 = score(doc=4450,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 4450, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4450)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

A layered approach for identifying communities in the Web is presented and explored by applying the flake exact community identification algorithm to the UK academic Web. Although community or topic identification is a common task in information retrieval, a new perspective is developed by: the application of alternative document models, shifting the focus from individual pages to aggregated collections based upon Web directories, domains and entire sites; the removal of internal site links; and the adaptation of a new fast algorithm to allow fully-automated community identification using all possible single starting points. The overall topology of the graphs in the three least-aggregated layers was first investigated and found to include a large number of isolated points but, surprisingly, with most of the remainder being in one huge connected component, exact proportions varying by layer. The community identification process then found that the number of communities far exceeded the number of topological components, indicating that community identification is a potentially useful technique, even with random starting points. Both the number and size of communities identified was dependent on the parameter of the algorithm, with very different results being obtained in each case. In conclusion, the UK academic Web is embedded with layers of non-trivial communities and, if it is not unique in this, then there is the promise of improved results for information retrieval algorithms that can exploit this additional structure, and the application of the technique directly to partially automate Web metrics tasks such as that of finding all pages related to a given subject hosted by a single country's universities.

0.0058776294 = product of:
  0.029388146 = sum of:
    0.007404097 = weight(_text_:information in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007404097 = score(doc=4626,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
    0.02198405 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02198405 = score(doc=4626,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

The primary webometric method for estimating the online impact of an organization is to count links to its website. Link counts have been available from commercial search engines for over a decade but this was set to end by early 2012 and so a replacement is needed. This article compares link counts to two alternative methods: URL citations and organization title mentions. New variations of these methods are also introduced. The three methods are compared against each other using Yahoo!. Two of the three methods (URL citations and organization title mentions) are also compared against each other using Bing. Evidence from a case study of 131 UK universities and 49 US Library and Information Science (LIS) departments suggests that Bing's Hit Count Estimates (HCEs) for popular title searches are not useful for webometric research but that Yahoo!'s HCEs for all three types of search and Bing's URL citation HCEs seem to be consistent. For exact URL counts the results of all three methods in Yahoo! and both methods in Bing are also consistent. Four types of accuracy factors are also introduced and defined: search engine coverage, search engine retrieval variation, search engine retrieval anomalies, and query polysemy.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1488-1497

0.0052876435 = product of:
  0.026438218 = sum of:
    0.011706905 = weight(_text_:information in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011706905 = score(doc=2734,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.014731311 = product of:
      0.029462622 = sum of:
        0.029462622 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029462622 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

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

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.434-442

0.005274595 = product of:
  0.026372975 = sum of:
    0.005235487 = weight(_text_:information in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005235487 = score(doc=4920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
    0.021137487 = product of:
      0.042274974 = sum of:
        0.042274974 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042274974 = score(doc=4920,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.327711 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Citation indictors are increasingly used in some subject areas to support peer review in the evaluation of researchers and departments. Nevertheless, traditional journal-based citation indexes may be inadequate for the citation impact assessment of book-based disciplines. This article examines whether online citations from Google Books and Google Scholar can provide alternative sources of citation evidence. To investigate this, we compared the citation counts to 1,000 books submitted to the 2008 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) from Google Books and Google Scholar with Scopus citations across seven book-based disciplines (archaeology; law; politics and international studies; philosophy; sociology; history; and communication, cultural, and media studies). Google Books and Google Scholar citations to books were 1.4 and 3.2 times more common than were Scopus citations, and their medians were more than twice and three times as high as were Scopus median citations, respectively. This large number of citations is evidence that in book-oriented disciplines in the social sciences, arts, and humanities, online book citations may be sufficiently numerous to support peer review for research evaluation, at least in the United Kingdom.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2147-2164

0.005083487 = product of:
  0.025417434 = sum of:
    0.010470974 = weight(_text_:information in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010470974 = score(doc=2946,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
    0.01494646 = product of:
      0.02989292 = sum of:
        0.02989292 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02989292 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.23172665 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%-5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1537-1549

0.0050086714 = product of:
  0.025043357 = sum of:
    0.00837678 = weight(_text_:information in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00837678 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
    0.016666576 = product of:
      0.033333153 = sum of:
        0.033333153 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033333153 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.401-406

0.0049873344 = product of:
  0.02493667 = sum of:
    0.0062825847 = weight(_text_:information in 4457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062825847 = score(doc=4457,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4457, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4457)
    0.018654086 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018654086 = score(doc=4457,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4457, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4457)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Google's PageRank is an influential algorithm that uses a model of Web use that is dominated by its link structure in order to rank pages by their estimated value to the Web community. This paper reports on the outcome of applying the algorithm to the Web sites of three national university systems in order to test whether it is capable of identifying the most important Web pages. The results are also compared with simple inlink counts. It was discovered that the highest inlinked pages do not always have the highest PageRank, indicating that the two metrics are genuinely different, even for the top pages. More significantly, however, internal links dominated external links for the high ranks in either method and superficial reasons accounted for high scores in both cases. It is concluded that PageRank is not useful for identifying the top pages in a site and that it must be combined with a powerful text matching techniques in order to get the quality of information retrieval results provided by Google.

0.004802918 = product of:
  0.02401459 = sum of:
    0.0090681305 = weight(_text_:information in 2190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0090681305 = score(doc=2190,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2190, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2190)
    0.01494646 = product of:
      0.02989292 = sum of:
        0.02989292 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 2190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02989292 = score(doc=2190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.23172665 = fieldWeight in 2190, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2190)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.8, S.1627-1638

0.004802918 = product of:
  0.02401459 = sum of:
    0.0090681305 = weight(_text_:information in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0090681305 = score(doc=3766,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
    0.01494646 = product of:
      0.02989292 = sum of:
        0.02989292 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02989292 = score(doc=3766,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.23172665 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

SlideShare is a free social website that aims to help users distribute and find presentations. Owned by LinkedIn since 2012, it targets a professional audience but may give value to scholarship through creating a long-term record of the content of talks. This article tests this hypothesis by analyzing sets of general and scholarly related SlideShare documents using content and citation analysis and popularity statistics reported on the site. The results suggest that academics, students, and teachers are a minority of SlideShare uploaders, especially since 2010, with most documents not being directly related to scholarship or teaching. About two thirds of uploaded SlideShare documents are presentation slides, with the remainder often being files associated with presentations or video recordings of talks. SlideShare is therefore a presentation-centered site with a predominantly professional user base. Although a minority of the uploaded SlideShare documents are cited by, or cite, academic publications, probably too few articles are cited by SlideShare to consider extracting SlideShare citations for research evaluation. Nevertheless, scholars should consider SlideShare to be a potential source of academic and nonacademic information, particularly in library and information science, education, and business.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.1989-2003

0.0044701113 = product of:
  0.022350557 = sum of:
    0.007404097 = weight(_text_:information in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007404097 = score(doc=6851,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 6851, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6851)
    0.01494646 = product of:
      0.02989292 = sum of:
        0.02989292 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02989292 = score(doc=6851,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.23172665 = fieldWeight in 6851, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6851)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Much has been written about the potential and pitfalls of macroscopic Web-based link analysis, yet there have been no studies that have provided clear statistical evidence that any of the proposed calculations can produce results over large areas of the Web that correlate with phenomena external to the Internet. This article attempts to provide such evidence through an evaluation of Ingwersen's (1998) proposed external Web Impact Factor (WIF) for the original use of the Web: the interlinking of academic research. In particular, it studies the case of the relationship between academic hyperlinks and research activity for universities in Britain, a country chosen for its variety of institutions and the existence of an official government rating exercise for research. After reviewing the numerous reasons why link counts may be unreliable, it demonstrates that four different WIFs do, in fact, correlate with the conventional academic research measures. The WIF delivering the greatest correlation with research rankings was the ratio of Web pages with links pointing at research-based pages to faculty numbers. The scarcity of links to electronic academic papers in the data set suggests that, in contrast to citation analysis, this WIF is measuring the reputations of universities and their scholars, rather than the quality of their publications

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.13, S.1157-1168