Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.026004681 = product of:
  0.121355176 = sum of:
    0.050814766 = weight(_text_:open in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050814766 = score(doc=586,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14443703 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.3518126 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.059676345 = weight(_text_:web in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059676345 = score(doc=586,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.010864062 = product of:
      0.021728124 = sum of:
        0.021728124 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021728124 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0320743 = 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)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

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.

0.01365826 = product of:
  0.09560782 = sum of:
    0.035931468 = weight(_text_:open in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035931468 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14443703 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
    0.059676345 = weight(_text_:web in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059676345 = score(doc=337,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

We use a new data gathering method, "Web/URL citation," Web/URL and Google Scholar to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, and education) based upon a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 open access (OA) journals published in 2001. A Web/URL citation of an online journal article is a Web mention of its title, URL, or both. For each discipline, except psychology, we found significant correlations between Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI, here: ISI) citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations. Google Scholar citations correlated more highly with ISI citations than did Google Web/URL citations, indicating that the Web/URL method measures a broader type of citation phenomenon. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines, suggesting that Google Scholar is more comprehensive for social sciences and perhaps also when conference articles are valued and published online. We also found large disciplinary differences in the percentage overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citation sources. Finally, although we found many significant trends, there were also numerous exceptions, suggesting that replacing traditional citation sources with the Web or Google Scholar for research impact calculations would be problematic.

0.011736653 = product of:
  0.08215657 = sum of:
    0.035931468 = weight(_text_:open in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035931468 = score(doc=1331,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14443703 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 1331, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1331)
    0.046225097 = weight(_text_:web in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046225097 = score(doc=1331,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 1331, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1331)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

0.011493893 = product of:
  0.08045725 = sum of:
    0.06158593 = weight(_text_:source in 2383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06158593 = score(doc=2383,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.38730863 = fieldWeight in 2383, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2383)
    0.018871317 = weight(_text_:web in 2383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018871317 = score(doc=2383,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2383, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2383)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The impact of published academic research in the sciences and social sciences, when measured, is commonly estimated by counting citations from journal articles. The Web has now introduced new potential sources of quantitative data online that could be used to measure aspects of research impact. In this article we assess the extent to which citations from online syllabuses could be a valuable source of evidence about the educational utility of research. An analysis of online syllabus citations to 70,700 articles published in 2003 in the journals of 12 subjects indicates that online syllabus citations were sufficiently numerous to be a useful impact indictor in some social sciences, including political science and information and library science, but not in others, nor in any sciences. This result was consistent with current social science research having, in general, more educational value than current science research. Moreover, articles frequently cited in online syllabuses were not necessarily highly cited by other articles. Hence it seems that online syllabus citations provide a valuable additional source of evidence about the impact of journals, scholars, and research articles in some social sciences.

0.011354187 = product of:
  0.0794793 = sum of:
    0.035931468 = weight(_text_:open in 1614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035931468 = score(doc=1614,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14443703 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 1614, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1614)
    0.04354783 = weight(_text_:source in 1614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04354783 = score(doc=1614,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.27386856 = fieldWeight in 1614, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1614)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Open-access online publication has made available an increasingly wide range of document types for scientometric analysis. In this article, we focus on citations in online presentations, seeking evidence of their value as nontraditional indicators of research impact. For this purpose, we searched for online PowerPoint files mentioning any one of 1,807 ISI-indexed journals in ten science and ten social science disciplines. We also manually classified 1,378 online PowerPoint citations to journals in eight additional science and social science disciplines. The results showed that very few journals were cited frequently enough in online PowerPoint files to make impact assessment worthwhile, with the main exceptions being popular magazines like Scientific American and Harvard Business Review. Surprisingly, however, there was little difference overall in the number of PowerPoint citations to science and to the social sciences, and also in the proportion representing traditional impact (about 60%) and wider impact (about 15%). It seems that the main scientometric value for online presentations may be in tracking the popularization of research, or for comparing the impact of whole journals rather than individual articles.

0.0066850763 = product of:
  0.046795532 = sum of:
    0.035931468 = weight(_text_:open in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035931468 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14443703 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.010864062 = product of:
      0.021728124 = sum of:
        0.021728124 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021728124 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0320743 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.004398995 = product of:
  0.06158593 = sum of:
    0.06158593 = weight(_text_:source in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06158593 = score(doc=3768,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.38730863 = fieldWeight in 3768, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3768)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Although peer-review and citation counts are commonly used to help assess the scholarly impact of published research, informal reader feedback might also be exploited to help assess the wider impacts of books, such as their educational or cultural value. The social website Goodreads seems to be a reasonable source for this purpose because it includes a large number of book reviews and ratings by many users inside and outside of academia. To check this, Goodreads book metrics were compared with different book-based impact indicators for 15,928 academic books across broad fields. Goodreads engagements were numerous enough in the arts (85% of books had at least one), humanities (80%), and social sciences (67%) for use as a source of impact evidence. Low and moderate correlations between Goodreads book metrics and scholarly or non-scholarly indicators suggest that reader feedback in Goodreads reflects the many purposes of books rather than a single type of impact. Although Goodreads book metrics can be manipulated, they could be used guardedly by academics, authors, and publishers in evaluations.

0.0031105594 = product of:
  0.04354783 = sum of:
    0.04354783 = weight(_text_:source in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04354783 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.27386856 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.0031105594 = product of:
  0.04354783 = sum of:
    0.04354783 = weight(_text_:source in 1658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04354783 = score(doc=1658,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.27386856 = fieldWeight in 1658, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1658)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that counting citations from books can help scholarly impact assessment and that Google Books (GB) is a useful source of such citation counts, despite its lack of a public citation index. Searching GB for citations produces approximate matches, however, and so its raw results need time-consuming human filtering. In response, this article introduces a method to automatically remove false and irrelevant matches from GB citation searches in addition to introducing refinements to a previous GB manual citation extraction method. The method was evaluated by manual checking of sampled GB results and comparing citations to about 14,500 monographs in the Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index (BKCI) against automatically extracted citations from GB across 24 subject areas. GB citations were 103% to 137% as numerous as BKCI citations in the humanities, except for tourism (72%) and linguistics (91%), 46% to 85% in social sciences, but only 8% to 53% in the sciences. In all cases, however, GB had substantially more citing books than did BKCI, with BKCI's results coming predominantly from journal articles. Moderate correlations between the GB and BKCI citation counts in social sciences and humanities, with most BKCI results coming from journal articles rather than books, suggests that they could measure the different aspects of impact, however.

0.0031105594 = product of:
  0.04354783 = sum of:
    0.04354783 = weight(_text_:source in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04354783 = score(doc=3760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.27386856 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Although news stories target the general public and are sometimes inaccurate, they can serve as sources of real-world information for researchers. This article investigates the extent to which academics exploit journalism using content and citation analyses of online BBC News stories cited by Scopus articles. A total of 27,234 Scopus-indexed publications have cited at least one BBC News story, with a steady annual increase. Citations from the arts and humanities (2.8% of publications in 2015) and social sciences (1.5%) were more likely than citations from medicine (0.1%) and science (<0.1%). Surprisingly, half of the sampled Scopus-cited science and technology (53%) and medicine and health (47%) stories were based on academic research, rather than otherwise unpublished information, suggesting that researchers have chosen a lower-quality secondary source for their citations. Nevertheless, the BBC News stories that were most frequently cited by Scopus, Google Books, and Wikipedia introduced new information from many different topics, including politics, business, economics, statistics, and reports about events. Thus, news stories are mediating real-world knowledge into the academic domain, a potential cause for concern.

0.0031105594 = product of:
  0.04354783 = sum of:
    0.04354783 = weight(_text_:source in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04354783 = score(doc=3766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.27386856 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.0022875492 = product of:
  0.032025687 = sum of:
    0.032025687 = weight(_text_:web in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032025687 = score(doc=3764,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.0013479512 = product of:
  0.018871317 = sum of:
    0.018871317 = weight(_text_:web in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018871317 = score(doc=3966,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The web contains a huge number of digital pictures. For scholars publishing such images it is important to know how well used their images are, but no method seems to have been developed for monitoring the value of academic images. In particular, can the impact of scientific or artistic images be assessed through identifying images copied or reused on the Internet? This article explores a case study of 260 NASA images to investigate whether the TinEye search engine could theoretically help to provide this information. The results show that the selected pictures had a median of 11 online copies each. However, a classification of 210 of these copies reveals that only 1.4% were explicitly used in academic publications, reflecting research impact, and the majority of the NASA pictures were used for informal scholarly (or educational) communication (37%). Additional analyses of world famous paintings and scientific images about pathology and molecular structures suggest that image contents are important for the type and extent of image use. Although it is reasonable to use statistics derived from TinEye for assessing image reuse value, the extent of its image indexing is not known.

0.0013479512 = product of:
  0.018871317 = sum of:
    0.018871317 = weight(_text_:web in 3534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018871317 = score(doc=3534,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3534, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3534)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Goodreads is an Amazon-owned book-based social web site for members to share books, read, review books, rate books, and connect with other readers. Goodreads has tens of millions of book reviews, recommendations, and ratings that may help librarians and readers to select relevant books. This article describes a first investigation of the properties of Goodreads users, using a random sample of 50,000 members. The results suggest that about three quarters of members with a public profile are female, and that there is little difference between male and female users in patterns of behavior, except for females registering more books and rating them less positively. Goodreads librarians and super-users engage extensively with most features of the site. The absence of strong correlations between book-based and social usage statistics (e.g., numbers of friends, followers, books, reviews, and ratings) suggests that members choose their own individual balance of social and book activities and rarely ignore one at the expense of the other. Goodreads is therefore neither primarily a book-based website nor primarily a social network site but is a genuine hybrid, social navigation site.

0.0013479512 = product of:
  0.018871317 = sum of:
    0.018871317 = weight(_text_:web in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018871317 = score(doc=947,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 947, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=947)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Altmetrics are web-based quantitative impact or attention indicators for academic articles that have been proposed to supplement citation counts. This article reports the first assessment of the extent to which mature altmetrics from Altmetric.com and Mendeley associate with individual article quality scores. It exploits expert norm-referenced peer review scores from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 for 67,030+ journal articles in all fields 2014-2017/2018, split into 34 broadly field-based Units of Assessment (UoAs). Altmetrics correlated more strongly with research quality than previously found, although less strongly than raw and field normalized Scopus citation counts. Surprisingly, field normalizing citation counts can reduce their strength as a quality indicator for articles in a single field. For most UoAs, Mendeley reader counts are the best altmetric (e.g., three Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.5), tweet counts are also a moderate strength indicator in eight UoAs (Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.3), ahead of news (eight correlations above 0.3, but generally weaker), blogs (five correlations above 0.3), and Facebook (three correlations above 0.3) citations, at least in the United Kingdom. In general, altmetrics are the strongest indicators of research quality in the health and physical sciences and weakest in the arts and humanities.

7.7600445E-4 = product of:
  0.010864062 = sum of:
    0.010864062 = product of:
      0.021728124 = sum of:
        0.021728124 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021728124 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0320743 = 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)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50