Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

0.024693392 = product of:
  0.14816035 = sum of:
    0.14816035 = weight(_text_:relationship in 1066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14816035 = score(doc=1066,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.6463077 = fieldWeight in 1066, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1066)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Previous studies of academic web interlinking have tended to hypothesise that the relationship between the research of a university and links to or from its web site should follow a linear trend, yet the typical distribution of web data, in general, seems to be a non-linear power law. This paper assesses whether a linear trend or a power law is the most appropriate method with which to model the relationship between research and web site size or outlinks. Following linear regression, analysis of the confidence intervals for the logarithmic graphs, and analysis of the outliers, the results suggest that a linear trend is more appropriate than a non-linear power law.

0.014401479 = product of:
  0.08640887 = sum of:
    0.08640887 = weight(_text_:relationship in 4225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08640887 = score(doc=4225,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3769343 = fieldWeight in 4225, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4225)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

National governments would like to preside over an expanding and increasingly high-impact science system but are these two goals largely independent or closely linked? This article investigates the relationship between changes in the share of the world's scientific output and changes in relative citation impact for 2.6 million articles from 26 fields in the 25 countries with the most Scopus-indexed journal articles from 1996 to 2015. There is a negative correlation between expansion and relative citation impact, but their relationship varies. China, Spain, Australia, and Poland were successful overall across the 26 fields, expanding both their share of the world's output and its relative citation impact, whereas Japan, France, Sweden, and Israel had decreased shares and relative citation impact. In contrast, the USA, UK, Germany, Italy, Russia, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland, and Denmark all enjoyed increased relative citation impact despite a declining share of publications. Finally, India, South Korea, Brazil, Taiwan, and Turkey all experienced sustained expansion but a recent fall in relative citation impact. These results may partly reflect changes in the coverage of Scopus and the selection of fields.

0.014401479 = product of:
  0.08640887 = sum of:
    0.08640887 = weight(_text_:relationship in 1033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08640887 = score(doc=1033,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3769343 = fieldWeight in 1033, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1033)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Citation counts are widely used as indicators of research quality to support or replace human peer review and for lists of top cited papers, researchers, and institutions. Nevertheless, the relationship between citations and research quality is poorly evidenced. We report the first large-scale science-wide academic evaluation of the relationship between research quality and citations (field normalized citation counts), correlating them for 87,739 journal articles in 34 field-based UK Units of Assessment (UoA). The two correlate positively in all academic fields, from very weak (0.1) to strong (0.5), reflecting broadly linear relationships in all fields. We give the first evidence that the correlations are positive even across the arts and humanities. The patterns are similar for the field classification schemes of Scopus and Dimensions.ai, although varying for some individual subjects and therefore more uncertain for these. We also show for the first time that no field has a citation threshold beyond which all articles are excellent quality, so lists of top cited articles are not pure collections of excellence, and neither is any top citation percentile indicator. Thus, while appropriately field normalized citations associate positively with research quality in all fields, they never perfectly reflect it, even at high values.

0.014110511 = product of:
  0.08466306 = sum of:
    0.08466306 = weight(_text_:relationship in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08466306 = score(doc=73,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3693187 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In recent years, a considerable body of Webometric research has used hyperlinks to generate indicators for the impact of Web documents and the organizations that created them. The relationship between this Web impact and other, offline impact indicators has been explored for entire universities, departments, countries, and scientific journals, but not yet for individual scientists-an important omission. The present research closes this gap by investigating factors that may influence the Web impact (i.e., inlink counts) of scientists' personal homepages. Data concerning 456 scientists from five scientific disciplines in six European countries were analyzed, showing that both homepage content and personal and institutional characteristics of the homepage owners had significant relationships with inlink counts. A multivariate statistical analysis confirmed that full-text articles are the most linked-to content in homepages. At the individual homepage level, hyperlinks are related to several offline characteristics. Notable differences regarding total inlinks to scientists' homepages exist between the scientific disciplines and the countries in the sample. There also are both gender and age effects: fewer external inlinks (i.e., links from other Web domains) to the homepages of female and of older scientists. There is only a weak relationship between a scientist's recognition and homepage inlinks and, surprisingly, no relationship between research productivity and inlink counts. Contrary to expectations, the size of collaboration networks is negatively related to hyperlink counts. Some of the relationships between hyperlinks to homepages and the properties of their owners can be explained by the content that the homepage owners put on their homepage and their level of Internet use; however, the findings about productivity and collaborations do not seem to have a simple, intuitive explanation. Overall, the results emphasize the complexity of the phenomenon of Web linking, when analyzed at the level of individual pages.

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In theory, articles can attract readers on the social reference sharing site Mendeley before they can attract citations, so Mendeley altmetrics could provide early indications of article impact. This article investigates the influence of time on the number of Mendeley readers of an article through a theoretical discussion and an investigation into the relationship between counts of readers of, and citations to, 4 general library and information science (LIS) journals. For this discipline, it takes about 7 years for articles to attract as many Scopus citations as Mendeley readers, and after this the Spearman correlation between readers and citers is stable at about 0.6 for all years. This suggests that Mendeley readership counts may be useful impact indicators for both newer and older articles. The lack of dates for individual Mendeley article readers and an unknown bias toward more recent articles mean that readership data should be normalized individually by year, however, before making any comparisons between articles published in different years.

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=3055,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 3055, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3055)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Medical research is highly funded and often expensive and so is particularly important to evaluate effectively. Nevertheless, citation counts may accrue too slowly for use in some formal and informal evaluations. It is therefore important to investigate whether alternative metrics could be used as substitutes. This article assesses whether one such altmetric, Mendeley readership counts, correlates strongly with citation counts across all medical fields, whether the relationship is stronger if student readers are excluded, and whether they are distributed similarly to citation counts. Based on a sample of 332,975 articles from 2009 in 45 medical fields in Scopus, citation counts correlated strongly (about 0.7; 78% of articles had at least one reader) with Mendeley readership counts (from the new version 1 applications programming interface [API]) in almost all fields, with one minor exception, and the correlations tended to decrease slightly when student readers were excluded. Readership followed either a lognormal or a hooked power law distribution, whereas citations always followed a hooked power law, showing that the two may have underlying differences.

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=3598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Although gender differences are known to exist in the publishing industry and in reader preferences, there is little public systematic data about them. This article uses evidence from the book-based social website Goodreads to provide a large scale analysis of 50 major English book genres based on author genders. The results show gender differences in authorship in almost all categories and gender differences the level of interest in, and ratings of, books in a minority of categories. Perhaps surprisingly in this context, there is not a clear gender-based relationship between the success of an author and their prevalence within a genre. The unexpected almost universal authorship gender differences should give new impetus to investigations of the importance of gender in fiction and the success of minority genders in some genres should encourage publishers and librarians to take their work seriously, except perhaps for most male-authored chick-lit.

0.010183383 = product of:
  0.061100297 = sum of:
    0.061100297 = weight(_text_:relationship in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061100297 = score(doc=6851,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.26653278 = fieldWeight in 6851, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6851)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.010183383 = product of:
  0.061100297 = sum of:
    0.061100297 = weight(_text_:relationship in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061100297 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.26653278 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.008583232 = product of:
  0.05149939 = sum of:
    0.05149939 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05149939 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

0.007586577 = product of:
  0.04551946 = sum of:
    0.04551946 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04551946 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.0064374236 = product of:
  0.03862454 = sum of:
    0.03862454 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03862454 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:27:06

0.0064374236 = product of:
  0.03862454 = sum of:
    0.03862454 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03862454 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

0.0064374236 = product of:
  0.03862454 = sum of:
    0.03862454 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03862454 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

0.0064374236 = product of:
  0.03862454 = sum of:
    0.03862454 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03862454 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

0.00536452 = product of:
  0.03218712 = sum of:
    0.03218712 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03218712 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.00536452 = product of:
  0.03218712 = sum of:
    0.03218712 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03218712 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:29:23

0.00536452 = product of:
  0.03218712 = sum of:
    0.03218712 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03218712 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

6. 4.2012 18:16:22

0.00536452 = product of:
  0.03218712 = sum of:
    0.03218712 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03218712 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.00536452 = product of:
  0.03218712 = sum of:
    0.03218712 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03218712 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22