Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03847589 = product of:
  0.07695178 = sum of:
    0.07695178 = sum of:
      0.03456243 = weight(_text_:data in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03456243 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052144732 = queryNorm
          0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 2757, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2757)
      0.04238935 = weight(_text_:22 in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04238935 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052144732 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2757, 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=2757)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article focuses on the process of scientific and scholarly communication. Data on open access publications on the Internet not only provides a supplement to the traditional citation indexes but also enables analysis of the microprocesses and daily practices that constitute scientific communication. This article focuses on a stage in the life cycle of scientific and scholarly information that precedes the publication of formal research articles in the scientific and scholarly literature. Binomial logistic regression models are used to analyse precise mechanisms at work in the transformation of a working paper (WP) into a journal article (JA) in the field of economics. The study unveils a fine-grained process of adapting WPs to their new context as JAs by deleting and adding literature references, which perhaps can be best captured by the term sculpting.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:59:25

0.032063242 = product of:
  0.064126484 = sum of:
    0.064126484 = sum of:
      0.028802028 = weight(_text_:data in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028802028 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052144732 = queryNorm
          0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.035324458 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035324458 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052144732 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the disciplinary orientation of scientific publications that were mentioned on different social media platforms, focussing on their differences and similarities with citation counts. Design/methodology/approach - Social media metrics and readership counts, associated with 500,216 publications and their citation data from the Web of Science database, were collected from Altmetric.com and Mendeley. Results are presented through descriptive statistical analyses together with science maps generated with VOSviewer. Findings - The results confirm Mendeley as the most prevalent social media source with similar characteristics to citations in their distribution across fields and their density in average values per publication. The humanities, natural sciences, and engineering disciplines have a much lower presence of social media metrics. Twitter has a stronger focus on general medicine and social sciences. Other sources (blog, Facebook, Google+, and news media mentions) are more prominent in regards to multidisciplinary journals. Originality/value - This paper reinforces the relevance of Mendeley as a social media source for analytical purposes from a disciplinary perspective, being particularly relevant for the social sciences (together with Twitter). Key implications for the use of social media metrics on the evaluation of research performance (e.g. the concentration of some social media metrics, such as blogs, news items, etc., around multidisciplinary journals) are identified.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.014256276 = product of:
  0.028512552 = sum of:
    0.028512552 = product of:
      0.057025105 = sum of:
        0.057025105 = weight(_text_:data in 1969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057025105 = score(doc=1969,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 1969, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1969)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

New mass publishing genres, such as blogs and personal home pages provide a rich source of social data that is yet to be fully exploited by the social sciences and humanities. Information-centered research (ICR) not only provides a genuinely new and useful information science research model for this type of data, but can also contribute to the emerging e-research infrastructure. Nevertheless, ICR should not be conducted on a purely abstract level, but should relate to potentially relevant problems.

0.012471643 = product of:
  0.024943287 = sum of:
    0.024943287 = product of:
      0.049886573 = sum of:
        0.049886573 = weight(_text_:data in 5409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049886573 = score(doc=5409,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.30255508 = fieldWeight in 5409, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The cognitive and social structures, and publication practices, of the humanities have been studied bibliometrically for the past 50 years. This article explores the conceptual frameworks, methods, and data sources used in bibliometrics to study the nature of the humanities, and its differences and similarities in comparison with other scientific domains. We give a historical overview of bibliometric scholarship between 1965 and 2018 that studies the humanities empirically and distinguishes between two periods in which the configuration of the bibliometric system differs remarkably. The first period, 1965 to the 1980s, is characterized by bibliometric methods embedded in a sociological theoretical framework, the development and use of the Price Index, and small samples of journal publications from which references are used as data sources. The second period, the 1980s to the present day, is characterized by a new intellectual hinterland-that of science policy and research evaluation-in which bibliometric methods become embedded. Here metadata of publications becomes the primary data source with which publication profiles of humanistic scholarly communities are analyzed. We unpack the differences between these two periods and critically discuss the analytical avenues that different approaches offer.

0.010183054 = product of:
  0.020366108 = sum of:
    0.020366108 = product of:
      0.040732216 = sum of:
        0.040732216 = weight(_text_:data in 514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040732216 = score(doc=514,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 514, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=514)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 is a ranking of universities based on bibliometric indicators of publication output, citation impact, and scientific collaboration. The ranking includes 500 major universities from 41 different countries. This paper provides an extensive discussion of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012. The ranking is compared with other global university rankings, in particular the Academic Ranking of World Universities (commonly known as the Shanghai Ranking) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. The comparison focuses on the methodological choices underlying the different rankings. Also, a detailed description is offered of the data collection methodology of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 and of the indicators used in the ranking. Various innovations in the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 are presented. These innovations include (1) an indicator based on counting a university's highly cited publications, (2) indicators based on fractional rather than full counting of collaborative publications, (3) the possibility of excluding non-English language publications, and (4) the use of stability intervals. Finally, some comments are made on the interpretation of the ranking and a number of limitations of the ranking are pointed out.

0.010080709 = product of:
  0.020161418 = sum of:
    0.020161418 = product of:
      0.040322836 = sum of:
        0.040322836 = weight(_text_:data in 1994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040322836 = score(doc=1994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 1994, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Research evaluation has become routine and often relies on metrics. But it is increasingly driven by data and not by expert judgement. As a result, the procedures that were designed to increase the quality of research are now threatening to damage the scientific system. To support researchers and managers, five experts led by Diana Hicks, professor in the School of Public Policy at Georgia Institute of Technology, and Paul Wouters, director of CWTS at Leiden University, have proposed ten principles for the measurement of research performance: the Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics published as a comment in Nature.

0.007200507 = product of:
  0.014401014 = sum of:
    0.014401014 = product of:
      0.028802028 = sum of:
        0.028802028 = weight(_text_:data in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028802028 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Currently, there exists little evidence concerning how various characteristics of research cultures are associated with patterns of use of electronic library resources. The present study addresses this gap by exploring how research-group membership, across-fields scattering of literature, and degree of establishment of research area are related to patterns of digital library use. The analytic dimensions are derived from Richard Whitley's ([1984]) theory of the social and intellectual organization of academic fields. The article represents a first attempt to operationalize Whitley's concepts in a large-scale study of e-resources use. The data used in the study were gathered in 2004 by the Finnish Electronic Library (FinElib) through a nationwide Web-based user questionnaire (N = 900). Membership in a research group significantly increased searching in journal databases, the importance of colleagues as sources of information about electronic articles and journals, and the use of alert services. A significant interaction effect was found between degree of across-fields scattering of relevant resources and degree of establishment of research fields. A high degree of across-fields scattering of relevant literature increased the number of journal databases used mainly in less established research areas whereas it influenced the use of journal databases less in established fields. This research contributes to our picture concerning the complex set of interacting factors influencing patterns of use of e-resources.

0.005760405 = product of:
  0.01152081 = sum of:
    0.01152081 = product of:
      0.02304162 = sum of:
        0.02304162 = weight(_text_:data in 3093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02304162 = score(doc=3093,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 3093, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3093)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

How do authors refer to Web-based information sources in their formal scientific publications? It is not yet weIl known how scientists and scholars actually include new types of information sources, available through the new media, in their published work. This article reports an a comparative study of the lists of references in 38 scientific journals in five different scientific and social scientific fields. The fields are sociology, library and information science, biochemistry and biotechnology, neuroscience, and the mathematics of computing. As is weIl known, references, citations, and hyperlinks play different roles in academic publishing and communication. Our study focuses an hyperlinks as attributes of references in formal scholarly publications. The study developed and applied a method to analyze the differential roles of publishing media in the analysis of scientific and scholarly literature references. The present secondary databases that include reference and citation data (the Web of Science) cannot be used for this type of research. By the automated processing and analysis of the full text of scientific and scholarly articles, we were able to extract the references and hyperlinks contained in these references in relation to other features of the scientific and scholarly literature. Our findings show that hyperlinking references are indeed, as expected, abundantly present in the formal literature. They also tend to cite more recent literature than the average reference. The large majority of the references are to Web instances of traditional scientific journals. Other types of Web-based information sources are less weIl represented in the lists of references, except in the case of pure e-journals. We conclude that this can be explained by taking the role of the publisher into account. Indeed, it seems that the shift from print-based to electronic publishing has created new roles for the publisher. By shaping the way scientific references are hyperlinking to other information sources, the publisher may have a large impact an the availability of scientific and scholarly information.