-
Thelwall, M.; Vann, K.; Fairclough, R.: Web issue analysis : an integrated water resource management case study (2006)
0.02
0.01642145 = product of:
0.11495014 = sum of:
0.11495014 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11495014 = score(doc=5906,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = queryNorm
0.5370168 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- In this article Web issue analysis is introduced as a new technique to investigate an issue as reflected on the Web. The issue chosen, integrated water resource management (IWRM), is a United Nations-initiated paradigm for managing water resources in an international context, particularly in developing nations. As with many international governmental initiatives, there is a considerable body of online information about it: 41.381 hypertext markup language (HTML) pages and 28.735 PDF documents mentioning the issue were downloaded. A page uniform resource locator (URL) and link analysis revealed the international and sectoral spread of IWRM. A noun and noun phrase occurrence analysis was used to identify the issues most commonly discussed, revealing some unexpected topics such as private sector and economic growth. Although the complexity of the methods required to produce meaningful statistics from the data is disadvantageous to easy interpretation, it was still possible to produce data that could be subject to a reasonably intuitive interpretation. Hence Web issue analysis is claimed to be a useful new technique for information science.
-
Thelwall, M.: ¬A comparison of sources of links for academic Web impact factor calculations (2002)
0.01
0.01161172 = product of:
0.081282035 = sum of:
0.081282035 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 4474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.081282035 = score(doc=4474,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = queryNorm
0.37972826 = fieldWeight in 4474, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4474)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- There has been much recent interest in extracting information from collections of Web links. One tool that has been used is Ingwersen's Web impact factor. It has been demonstrated that several versions of this metric can produce results that correlate with research ratings of British universities showing that, despite being a measure of a purely Internet phenomenon, the results are susceptible to a wider interpretation. This paper addresses the question of which is the best possible domain to count backlinks from, if research is the focus of interest. WIFs for British universities calculated from several different source domains are compared, primarily the .edu, .ac.uk and .uk domains, and the entire Web. The results show that all four areas produce WIFs that correlate strongly with research ratings, but that none produce incontestably superior figures. It was also found that the WIF was less able to differentiate in more homogeneous subsets of universities, although positive results are still possible.
-
Thelwall, M.; Vaughan, L.; Björneborn, L.: Webometrics (2004)
0.01
0.009676432 = product of:
0.067735024 = sum of:
0.067735024 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.067735024 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = queryNorm
0.3164402 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.
-
Barjak, F.; Thelwall, M.: ¬A statistical analysis of the web presences of European life sciences research teams (2008)
0.01
0.009676432 = product of:
0.067735024 = sum of:
0.067735024 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 1383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.067735024 = score(doc=1383,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = queryNorm
0.3164402 = fieldWeight in 1383, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1383)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- Web links have been used for around ten years to explore the online impact of academic information and information producers. Nevertheless, few studies have attempted to relate link counts to relevant offline attributes of the owners of the targeted Web sites, with the exception of research productivity. This article reports the results of a study to relate site inlink counts to relevant owner characteristics for over 400 European life-science research group Web sites. The analysis confirmed that research-group size and Web-presence size were important for attracting Web links, although research productivity was not. Little evidence was found for significant influence of any of an array of factors, including research-group leader gender and industry connections. In addition, the choice of search engine for link data created a surprising international difference in the results, with Google perhaps giving unreliable results. Overall, the data collection, statistical analysis and results interpretation were all complex and it seems that we still need to know more about search engines, hyperlinks, and their function in science before we can draw conclusions on their usefulness and role in the canon of science and technology indicators.
-
Mohammadi, E.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? : a survey of user motivations (2016)
0.01
0.009676432 = product of:
0.067735024 = sum of:
0.067735024 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 2897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.067735024 = score(doc=2897,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = queryNorm
0.3164402 = fieldWeight in 2897, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2897)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- Although Mendeley bookmarking counts appear to correlate moderately with conventional citation metrics, it is not known whether academic publications are bookmarked in Mendeley in order to be read or not. Without this information, it is not possible to give a confident interpretation of altmetrics derived from Mendeley. In response, a survey of 860 Mendeley users shows that it is reasonable to use Mendeley bookmarking counts as an indication of readership because most (55%) users with a Mendeley library had read or intended to read at least half of their bookmarked publications. This was true across all broad areas of scholarship except for the arts and humanities (42%). About 85% of the respondents also declared that they bookmarked articles in Mendeley to cite them in their publications, but some also bookmark articles for use in professional (50%), teaching (25%), and educational activities (13%). Of course, it is likely that most readers do not record articles in Mendeley and so these data do not represent all readers. In conclusion, Mendeley bookmark counts seem to be indicators of readership leading to a combination of scholarly impact and wider professional impact.
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.00
0.0028930905 = product of:
0.020251632 = sum of:
0.020251632 = product of:
0.040503263 = sum of:
0.040503263 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040503263 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.00
0.0025571547 = product of:
0.017900083 = sum of:
0.017900083 = product of:
0.035800166 = sum of:
0.035800166 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035800166 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011)
0.00
0.0021698177 = product of:
0.015188723 = sum of:
0.015188723 = product of:
0.030377446 = sum of:
0.030377446 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030377446 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:27:06
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.00
0.0021698177 = product of:
0.015188723 = sum of:
0.015188723 = product of:
0.030377446 = sum of:
0.030377446 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030377446 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.00
0.0021698177 = product of:
0.015188723 = sum of:
0.015188723 = product of:
0.030377446 = sum of:
0.030377446 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030377446 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.00
0.0021698177 = product of:
0.015188723 = sum of:
0.015188723 = product of:
0.030377446 = sum of:
0.030377446 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030377446 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.00
0.0018081815 = product of:
0.01265727 = sum of:
0.01265727 = product of:
0.02531454 = sum of:
0.02531454 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02531454 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = 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)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- 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.
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.00
0.0018081815 = product of:
0.01265727 = sum of:
0.01265727 = product of:
0.02531454 = sum of:
0.02531454 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02531454 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:29:23
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.00
0.0018081815 = product of:
0.01265727 = sum of:
0.01265727 = product of:
0.02531454 = sum of:
0.02531454 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02531454 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 6. 4.2012 18:16:22
-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.00
0.0018081815 = product of:
0.01265727 = sum of:
0.01265727 = product of:
0.02531454 = sum of:
0.02531454 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02531454 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = 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(1/7)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.00
0.0018081815 = product of:
0.01265727 = sum of:
0.01265727 = product of:
0.02531454 = sum of:
0.02531454 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02531454 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.00
0.0018081815 = product of:
0.01265727 = sum of:
0.01265727 = product of:
0.02531454 = sum of:
0.02531454 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02531454 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
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
0.0018081815 = product of:
0.01265727 = sum of:
0.01265727 = product of:
0.02531454 = sum of:
0.02531454 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02531454 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = 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)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
