Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04295094 = product of:
  0.08590188 = sum of:
    0.07085138 = weight(_text_:engineering in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07085138 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.29679304 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.015050502 = product of:
      0.030101003 = sum of:
        0.030101003 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030101003 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50

0.025049746 = product of:
  0.100198984 = sum of:
    0.100198984 = weight(_text_:engineering in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100198984 = score(doc=1331,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.41972876 = fieldWeight in 1331, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1331)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Some curricula vitae (web CVs) of academics on the web, including homepages and publication lists, link to open-access (OA) articles, resources, abstracts in publishers' websites, or academic discussions, helping to disseminate research. To assess how common such practices are and whether they vary by discipline, gender, and country, the authors conducted a large-scale e-mail survey of astronomy and astrophysics, public health, environmental engineering, and philosophy across 15 European countries and analyzed hyperlinks from web CVs of academics. About 60% of the 2,154 survey responses reported having a web CV or something similar, and there were differences between disciplines, genders, and countries. A follow-up outlink analysis of 2,700 web CVs found that a third had at least one outlink to an OA target, typically a public eprint archive or an individual self-archived file. This proportion was considerably higher in astronomy (48%) and philosophy (37%) than in environmental engineering (29%) and public health (21%). There were also differences in linking to publishers' websites, resources, and discussions. Perhaps most important, however, the amount of linking to OA publications seems to be much lower than allowed by publishers and journals, suggesting that many opportunities for disseminating full-text research online are being missed, especially in disciplines without established repositories. Moreover, few academics seem to be exploiting their CVs to link to discussions, resources, or article abstracts, which seems to be another missed opportunity for publicizing research.

0.025049746 = product of:
  0.100198984 = sum of:
    0.100198984 = weight(_text_:engineering in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100198984 = score(doc=3317,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.41972876 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Citations from patents to scientific publications provide useful evidence about the commercial impact of academic research, but automatically searchable databases are needed to exploit this connection for large-scale patent citation evaluations. Google covers multiple different international patent office databases but does not index patent citations or allow automatic searches. In response, this article introduces a semiautomatic indirect method via Bing to extract and filter patent citations from Google to academic papers with an overall precision of 98%. The method was evaluated with 322,192 science and engineering Scopus articles from every second year for the period 1996-2012. Although manual Google Patent searches give more results, especially for articles with many patent citations, the difference is not large enough to be a major problem. Within Biomedical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Pharmacology & Pharmaceutics, 7% to 10% of Scopus articles had at least one patent citation but other fields had far fewer, so patent citation analysis is only relevant for a minority of publications. Low but positive correlations between Google Patent citations and Scopus citations across all fields suggest that traditional citation counts cannot substitute for patent citations when evaluating research.

0.021255413 = product of:
  0.08502165 = sum of:
    0.08502165 = weight(_text_:engineering in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08502165 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.35615164 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0037626254 = product of:
  0.015050502 = sum of:
    0.015050502 = product of:
      0.030101003 = sum of:
        0.030101003 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030101003 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.

0.0037626254 = product of:
  0.015050502 = sum of:
    0.015050502 = product of:
      0.030101003 = sum of:
        0.030101003 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030101003 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22