-
Wiggers, G.; Verberne, S.; Loon, W. van; Zwenne, G.-J.: Bibliometric-enhanced legal information retrieval : combining usage and citations as flavors of impact relevance (2023)
0.02
0.022574786 = product of:
0.13544871 = sum of:
0.13544871 = weight(_text_:ranking in 1022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13544871 = score(doc=1022,freq=10.0), product of:
0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.66815823 = fieldWeight in 1022, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1022)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Bibliometric-enhanced information retrieval uses bibliometrics (e.g., citations) to improve ranking algorithms. Using a data-driven approach, this article describes the development of a bibliometric-enhanced ranking algorithm for legal information retrieval, and the evaluation thereof. We statistically analyze the correlation between usage of documents and citations over time, using data from a commercial legal search engine. We then propose a bibliometric boost function that combines usage of documents with citation counts. The core of this function is an impact variable based on usage and citations that increases in influence as citations and usage counts become more reliable over time. We evaluate our ranking function by comparing search sessions before and after the introduction of the new ranking in the search engine. Using a cost model applied to 129,571 sessions before and 143,864 sessions after the intervention, we show that our bibliometric-enhanced ranking algorithm reduces the time of a search session of legal professionals by 2 to 3% on average for use cases other than known-item retrieval or updating behavior. Given the high hourly tariff of legal professionals and the limited time they can spend on research, this is expected to lead to increased efficiency, especially for users with extremely long search sessions.
-
Haley, M.R.: ¬A simple paradigm for augmenting the Euclidean index to reflect journal impact and visibility (2020)
0.01
0.0121149 = product of:
0.0726894 = sum of:
0.0726894 = weight(_text_:ranking in 5676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0726894 = score(doc=5676,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.35857132 = fieldWeight in 5676, 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=5676)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- This article offers an adjustment to the recently developed Euclidean Index (Perry and Reny, 2016). The proposed companion metric reflects the impact of the journal in which an article appears; the rationale for incorporating this information is to reflect higher costs of production and higher review standards, and to mitigate the heavily truncated citation counts that often arise in promotion, renewal, and tenure deliberations. Additionally, focusing jointly on citations and journal impact diversifies the assessment process, and can thereby help avoid misjudging scholars with modest citation counts in high-level journals. A combination of both metrics is also proposed, which nests each as a special case. The approach is demonstrated using a generic journal ranking metric, but can be adapted to most any stated or revealed preference measure of journal impact.
-
Lemke, S.; Mazarakis, A.; Peters, I.: Conjoint analysis of researchers' hidden preferences for bibliometrics, altmetrics, and usage metrics (2021)
0.01
0.010095751 = product of:
0.0605745 = sum of:
0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0605745 = score(doc=247,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 247, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=247)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- The amount of annually published scholarly articles is growing steadily, as is the number of indicators through which impact of publications is measured. Little is known about how the increasing variety of available metrics affects researchers' processes of selecting literature to read. We conducted ranking experiments embedded into an online survey with 247 participating researchers, most from social sciences. Participants completed series of tasks in which they were asked to rank fictitious publications regarding their expected relevance, based on their scores regarding six prototypical metrics. Through applying logistic regression, cluster analysis, and manual coding of survey answers, we obtained detailed data on how prominent metrics for research impact influence our participants in decisions about which scientific articles to read. Survey answers revealed a combination of qualitative and quantitative characteristics that researchers consult when selecting literature, while regression analysis showed that among quantitative metrics, citation counts tend to be of highest concern, followed by Journal Impact Factors. Our results suggest a comparatively favorable view of many researchers on bibliometrics and widespread skepticism toward altmetrics. The findings underline the importance of equipping researchers with solid knowledge about specific metrics' limitations, as they seem to play significant roles in researchers' everyday relevance assessments.
-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.01
0.005667552 = product of:
0.03400531 = sum of:
0.03400531 = product of:
0.051007964 = sum of:
0.025619213 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025619213 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
0.025388751 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025388751 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Manley, S.: Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics (2022)
0.00
0.0019746807 = product of:
0.011848084 = sum of:
0.011848084 = product of:
0.03554425 = sum of:
0.03554425 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03554425 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 6. 4.2022 19:22:26
-
Lorentzen, D.G.: Bridging polarised Twitter discussions : the interactions of the users in the middle (2021)
0.00
0.0016925833 = product of:
0.0101555 = sum of:
0.0101555 = product of:
0.030466499 = sum of:
0.030466499 = weight(_text_:22 in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030466499 = score(doc=182,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 182, 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=182)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Milard, B.; Pitarch, Y.: Egocentric cocitation networks and scientific papers destinies (2023)
0.00
0.0016925833 = product of:
0.0101555 = sum of:
0.0101555 = product of:
0.030466499 = sum of:
0.030466499 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030466499 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, 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=918)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 21. 3.2023 19:22:14
-
Liu, M.; Bu, Y.; Chen, C.; Xu, J.; Li, D.; Leng, Y.; Freeman, R.B.; Meyer, E.T.; Yoon, W.; Sung, M.; Jeong, M.; Lee, J.; Kang, J.; Min, C.; Zhai, Y.; Song, M.; Ding, Y.: Pandemics are catalysts of scientific novelty : evidence from COVID-19 (2022)
0.00
0.0014232898 = product of:
0.008539738 = sum of:
0.008539738 = product of:
0.025619213 = sum of:
0.025619213 = weight(_text_:29 in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025619213 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Scientific novelty drives the efforts to invent new vaccines and solutions during the pandemic. First-time collaboration and international collaboration are two pivotal channels to expand teams' search activities for a broader scope of resources required to address the global challenge, which might facilitate the generation of novel ideas. Our analysis of 98,981 coronavirus papers suggests that scientific novelty measured by the BioBERT model that is pretrained on 29 million PubMed articles, and first-time collaboration increased after the outbreak of COVID-19, and international collaboration witnessed a sudden decrease. During COVID-19, papers with more first-time collaboration were found to be more novel and international collaboration did not hamper novelty as it had done in the normal periods. The findings suggest the necessity of reaching out for distant resources and the importance of maintaining a collaborative scientific community beyond nationalism during a pandemic.
-
Jiao, H.; Qiu, Y.; Ma, X.; Yang, B.: Dissmination effect of data papers on scientific datasets (2024)
0.00
0.0014232898 = product of:
0.008539738 = sum of:
0.008539738 = product of:
0.025619213 = sum of:
0.025619213 = weight(_text_:29 in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025619213 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 7. 1.2024 18:24:29
-
Wang, S.; Ma, Y.; Mao, J.; Bai, Y.; Liang, Z.; Li, G.: Quantifying scientific breakthroughs by a novel disruption indicator based on knowledge entities : On the rise of scrape-and-report scholarship in online reviews research (2023)
0.00
0.0014104862 = product of:
0.008462917 = sum of:
0.008462917 = product of:
0.025388751 = sum of:
0.025388751 = weight(_text_:22 in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025388751 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 882, 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=882)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 22. 1.2023 18:37:33
-
Cerda-Cosme, R.; Méndez, E.: Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19 : a first approach (2023)
0.00
0.0014104862 = product of:
0.008462917 = sum of:
0.008462917 = product of:
0.025388751 = sum of:
0.025388751 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025388751 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 916, 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=916)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 21. 3.2023 19:22:02
-
Asubiaro, T.V.; Onaolapo, S.: ¬A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef (2023)
0.00
0.0014104862 = product of:
0.008462917 = sum of:
0.008462917 = product of:
0.025388751 = sum of:
0.025388751 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025388751 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 14:09:06
-
Zhang, Y.; Wu, M.; Zhang, G.; Lu, J.: Stepping beyond your comfort zone : diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation (2023)
0.00
0.0014104862 = product of:
0.008462917 = sum of:
0.008462917 = product of:
0.025388751 = sum of:
0.025388751 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025388751 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:07:12
-
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
0.0014104862 = product of:
0.008462917 = sum of:
0.008462917 = product of:
0.025388751 = sum of:
0.025388751 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025388751 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
-
Vakkari, P.; Järvelin, K.; Chang, Y.-W.: ¬The association of disciplinary background with the evolution of topics and methods in Library and Information Science research 1995-2015 (2023)
0.00
0.0014104862 = product of:
0.008462917 = sum of:
0.008462917 = product of:
0.025388751 = sum of:
0.025388751 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025388751 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:15:06
