Search (56 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? : Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals (2016) 0.03 
    0.026780019 = product of:
  0.100425065 = sum of:
    0.01908586 = product of:
      0.03817172 = sum of:
        0.03817172 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03817172 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.038981467 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038981467 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
    0.03817172 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03817172 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
    0.0041860198 = product of:
      0.0083720395 = sum of:
        0.0083720395 = weight(_text_:information in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0083720395 = score(doc=2495,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    In theory, articles can attract readers on the social reference sharing site Mendeley before they can attract citations, so Mendeley altmetrics could provide early indications of article impact. This article investigates the influence of time on the number of Mendeley readers of an article through a theoretical discussion and an investigation into the relationship between counts of readers of, and citations to, 4 general library and information science (LIS) journals. For this discipline, it takes about 7 years for articles to attract as many Scopus citations as Mendeley readers, and after this the Spearman correlation between readers and citers is stable at about 0.6 for all years. This suggests that Mendeley readership counts may be useful impact indicators for both newer and older articles. The lack of dates for individual Mendeley article readers and an unknown bias toward more recent articles mean that readership data should be normalized individually by year, however, before making any comparisons between articles published in different years.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.1, S.191-199
  2. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.00 
    0.0021285866 = product of:
  0.031928796 = sum of:
    0.031928796 = sum of:
      0.0083720395 = weight(_text_:information in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0083720395 = score(doc=2856,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
      0.023556758 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023556758 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    This article introduces a new source of evidence of the value of medical-related research: citations from clinical guidelines. These give evidence that research findings have been used to inform the day-to-day practice of medical staff. To identify whether citations from guidelines can give different information from that of traditional citation counts, this article assesses the extent to which references in clinical guidelines tend to be highly cited in the academic literature and highly read in Mendeley. Using evidence from the United Kingdom, references associated with the UK's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines tended to be substantially more cited than comparable articles, unless they had been published in the most recent 3 years. Citation counts also seemed to be stronger indicators than Mendeley readership altmetrics. Hence, although presence in guidelines may be particularly useful to highlight the contributions of recently published articles, for older articles citation counts may already be sufficient to recognize their contributions to health in society.
    Date
    19. 3.2016 12:22:00
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.960-966
  3. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011) 0.00 
    0.0019651123 = product of:
  0.029476684 = sum of:
    0.029476684 = sum of:
      0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005919926 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
      0.023556758 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023556758 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:27:06
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.406-418
  4. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.00 
    0.0019651123 = product of:
  0.029476684 = sum of:
    0.029476684 = sum of:
      0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005919926 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
      0.023556758 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023556758 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Date
    16.11.2016 11:07:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3036-3050
  5. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.00 
    0.0019651123 = product of:
  0.029476684 = sum of:
    0.029476684 = sum of:
      0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005919926 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
      0.023556758 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023556758 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Date
    28. 7.2018 10:00:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.8, S.959-973
  6. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010) 0.00 
    0.0017738222 = product of:
  0.026607333 = sum of:
    0.026607333 = sum of:
      0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0069766995 = score(doc=4200,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
      0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019630633 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:29:23
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch das Erratum in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.419
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2544-2558
  7. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.00 
    0.0017738222 = product of:
  0.026607333 = sum of:
    0.026607333 = sum of:
      0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0069766995 = score(doc=57,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
      0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019630633 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Webometric network analyses have been used to map the connectivity of groups of websites to identify clusters, important sites or overall structure. Such analyses have mainly been based upon hyperlink counts, the number of hyperlinks between a pair of websites, although some have used title mentions or URL citations instead. The ability to automatically gather hyperlink counts from Yahoo! ceased in April 2011 and the ability to manually gather such counts was due to cease by early 2012, creating a need for alternatives. This article assesses URL citations and title mentions as possible replacements for hyperlinks in both binary and weighted direct link and co-inlink network diagrams. It also assesses three different types of data for the network connections: hit count estimates, counts of matching URLs, and filtered counts of matching URLs. Results from analyses of U.S. library and information science departments and U.K. universities give evidence that metrics based upon URLs or titles can be appropriate replacements for metrics based upon hyperlinks for both binary and weighted networks, although filtered counts of matching URLs are necessary to give the best results for co-title mention and co-URL citation network diagrams.
    Date
    6. 4.2012 18:16:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.805-816
  8. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.00 
    0.0016375937 = product of:
  0.024563905 = sum of:
    0.024563905 = sum of:
      0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0049332716 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019630633 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.6, S.614-635
  9. Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017) 0.00 
    0.0016375937 = product of:
  0.024563905 = sum of:
    0.024563905 = sum of:
      0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0049332716 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
      0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019630633 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.2, S.174-183
  10. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: News stories as evidence for research? : BBC citations from articles, Books, and Wikipedia (2017) 0.00 
    3.2888478E-4 = product of:
  0.0049332716 = sum of:
    0.0049332716 = product of:
      0.009866543 = sum of:
        0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009866543 = score(doc=3760,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.2017-2028
  11. Mohammadi , E.; Thelwall, M.: Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities : research evaluation and knowledge flows (2014) 0.00 
    2.848226E-4 = product of:
  0.004272339 = sum of:
    0.004272339 = product of:
      0.008544678 = sum of:
        0.008544678 = weight(_text_:information in 2190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008544678 = score(doc=2190,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2190, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2190)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Although there is evidence that counting the readers of an article in the social reference site, Mendeley, may help to capture its research impact, the extent to which this is true for different scientific fields is unknown. In this study, we compare Mendeley readership counts with citations for different social sciences and humanities disciplines. The overall correlation between Mendeley readership counts and citations for the social sciences was higher than for the humanities. Low and medium correlations between Mendeley bookmarks and citation counts in all the investigated disciplines suggest that these measures reflect different aspects of research impact. Mendeley data were also used to discover patterns of information flow between scientific fields. Comparing information flows based on Mendeley bookmarking data and cross-disciplinary citation analysis for the disciplines revealed substantial similarities and some differences. Thus, the evidence from this study suggests that Mendeley readership data could be used to help capture knowledge transfer across scientific disciplines, especially for people that read but do not author articles, as well as giving impact evidence at an earlier stage than is possible with citation counts.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.8, S.1627-1638
  12. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: SlideShare presentations, citations, users, and trends : a professional site with academic and educational uses (2017) 0.00 
    2.848226E-4 = product of:
  0.004272339 = sum of:
    0.004272339 = product of:
      0.008544678 = sum of:
        0.008544678 = weight(_text_:information in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008544678 = score(doc=3766,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.1989-2003
  13. Thelwall, M.: Assessing web search engines : a webometric approach (2011) 0.00 
    2.79068E-4 = product of:
  0.0041860198 = sum of:
    0.0041860198 = product of:
      0.0083720395 = sum of:
        0.0083720395 = weight(_text_:information in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0083720395 = score(doc=10,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Information Retrieval (IR) research typically evaluates search systems in terms of the standard precision, recall and F-measures to weight the relative importance of precision and recall (e.g. van Rijsbergen, 1979). All of these assess the extent to which the system returns good matches for a query. In contrast, webometric measures are designed specifically for web search engines and are designed to monitor changes in results over time and various aspects of the internal logic of the way in which search engine select the results to be returned. This chapter introduces a range of webometric measurements and illustrates them with case studies of Google, Bing and Yahoo! This is a very fertile area for simple and complex new investigations into search engine results.
    Source
    Innovations in information retrieval: perspectives for theory and practice. Eds.: A. Foster, u. P. Rafferty
  14. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Rezaie, S.: Can the impact of scholarly images be assessed online? : an exploratory study using image identification technology (2010) 0.00 
    2.3255666E-4 = product of:
  0.0034883497 = sum of:
    0.0034883497 = product of:
      0.0069766995 = sum of:
        0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069766995 = score(doc=3966,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.9, S.1734-1744
  15. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.; Oppenheim, C.: Variations between subjects in the extent to which the social sciences have become more interdisciplinary (2011) 0.00 
    2.3255666E-4 = product of:
  0.0034883497 = sum of:
    0.0034883497 = product of:
      0.0069766995 = sum of:
        0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069766995 = score(doc=4465,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Increasing interdisciplinarity has been a policy objective since the 1990s, promoted by many governments and funding agencies, but the question is: How deeply has this affected the social sciences? Although numerous articles have suggested that research has become more interdisciplinary, yet no study has compared the extent to which the interdisciplinarity of different social science subjects has changed. To address this gap, changes in the level of interdisciplinarity since 1980 are investigated for subjects with many articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), using the percentage of cross-disciplinary citing documents (PCDCD) to evaluate interdisciplinarity. For the 14 SSCI subjects investigated, the median level of interdisciplinarity, as measured using cross-disciplinary citations, declined from 1980 to 1990, but rose sharply between 1990 and 2000, confirming previous research. This increase was not fully matched by an increase in the percentage of articles that were assigned to more than one subject category. Nevertheless, although on average the social sciences have recently become more interdisciplinary, the extent of this change varies substantially from subject to subject. The SSCI subject with the largest increase in interdisciplinarity between 1990 and 2000 was Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) but there is evidence that the level of interdisciplinarity of IS&LS increased less quickly during the first decade of this century.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.6, S.1118-1129
  16. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: ¬A comparison of methods for collecting web citation data for academic organizations (2011) 0.00 
    2.3255666E-4 = product of:
  0.0034883497 = sum of:
    0.0034883497 = product of:
      0.0069766995 = sum of:
        0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069766995 = score(doc=4626,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    The primary webometric method for estimating the online impact of an organization is to count links to its website. Link counts have been available from commercial search engines for over a decade but this was set to end by early 2012 and so a replacement is needed. This article compares link counts to two alternative methods: URL citations and organization title mentions. New variations of these methods are also introduced. The three methods are compared against each other using Yahoo!. Two of the three methods (URL citations and organization title mentions) are also compared against each other using Bing. Evidence from a case study of 131 UK universities and 49 US Library and Information Science (LIS) departments suggests that Bing's Hit Count Estimates (HCEs) for popular title searches are not useful for webometric research but that Yahoo!'s HCEs for all three types of search and Bing's URL citation HCEs seem to be consistent. For exact URL counts the results of all three methods in Yahoo! and both methods in Bing are also consistent. Four types of accuracy factors are also introduced and defined: search engine coverage, search engine retrieval variation, search engine retrieval anomalies, and query polysemy.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1488-1497
  17. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment strength detection for the social web (2012) 0.00 
    2.3255666E-4 = product of:
  0.0034883497 = sum of:
    0.0034883497 = product of:
      0.0069766995 = sum of:
        0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 4972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069766995 = score(doc=4972,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4972, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4972)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Sentiment analysis is concerned with the automatic extraction of sentiment-related information from text. Although most sentiment analysis addresses commercial tasks, such as extracting opinions from product reviews, there is increasing interest in the affective dimension of the social web, and Twitter in particular. Most sentiment analysis algorithms are not ideally suited to this task because they exploit indirect indicators of sentiment that can reflect genre or topic instead. Hence, such algorithms used to process social web texts can identify spurious sentiment patterns caused by topics rather than affective phenomena. This article assesses an improved version of the algorithm SentiStrength for sentiment strength detection across the social web that primarily uses direct indications of sentiment. The results from six diverse social web data sets (MySpace, Twitter, YouTube, Digg, Runners World, BBC Forums) indicate that SentiStrength 2 is successful in the sense of performing better than a baseline approach for all data sets in both supervised and unsupervised cases. SentiStrength is not always better than machine-learning approaches that exploit indirect indicators of sentiment, however, and is particularly weaker for positive sentiment in news-related discussions. Overall, the results suggest that, even unsupervised, SentiStrength is robust enough to be applied to a wide variety of different social web contexts.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.163-173
  18. Haustein, S.; Peters, I.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.; Larivière, V.: Tweeting biomedicine : an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature (2014) 0.00 
    2.3255666E-4 = product of:
  0.0034883497 = sum of:
    0.0034883497 = product of:
      0.0069766995 = sum of:
        0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069766995 = score(doc=1229,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Data collected by social media platforms have been introduced as new sources for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation analysis. Data generated from social media activities can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This article aims to provide systematic evidence about how often Twitter is used to disseminate information about journal articles in the biomedical sciences. The analysis is based on 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science and published between 2010 and 2012. The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed and compared to citations to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter and how far tweets correlate with citation impact. With less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general but differs between journals and specialties. Correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework using the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media-based metrics.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.656-669
  19. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Academia.edu : Social network or Academic Network? (2014) 0.00 
    2.3255666E-4 = product of:
  0.0034883497 = sum of:
    0.0034883497 = product of:
      0.0069766995 = sum of:
        0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 1234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069766995 = score(doc=1234,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1234, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Academic social network sites Academia.edu and ResearchGate, and reference sharing sites Mendeley, Bibsonomy, Zotero, and CiteULike, give scholars the ability to publicize their research outputs and connect with each other. With millions of users, these are a significant addition to the scholarly communication and academic information-seeking eco-structure. There is thus a need to understand the role that they play and the changes, if any, that they can make to the dynamics of academic careers. This article investigates attributes of philosophy scholars on Academia.edu, introducing a median-based, time-normalizing method to adjust for time delays in joining the site. In comparison to students, faculty tend to attract more profile views but female philosophers did not attract more profile views than did males, suggesting that academic capital drives philosophy uses of the site more than does friendship and networking. Secondary analyses of law, history, and computer science confirmed the faculty advantage (in terms of higher profile views) except for females in law and females in computer science. There was also a female advantage for both faculty and students in law and computer science as well as for history students. Hence, Academia.edu overall seems to reflect a hybrid of scholarly norms (the faculty advantage) and a female advantage that is suggestive of general social networking norms. Finally, traditional bibliometric measures did not correlate with any Academia.edu metrics for philosophers, perhaps because more senior academics use the site less extensively or because of the range informal scholarly activities that cannot be measured by bibliometric methods.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.721-731
  20. Mohammadi, E.; Thelwall, M.; Haustein, S.; Larivière, V.: Who reads research articles? : an altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories (2015) 0.00 
    2.3255666E-4 = product of:
  0.0034883497 = sum of:
    0.0034883497 = product of:
      0.0069766995 = sum of:
        0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 2162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069766995 = score(doc=2162,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2162, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2162)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Little detailed information is known about who reads research articles and the contexts in which research articles are read. Using data about people who register in Mendeley as readers of articles, this article explores different types of users of Clinical Medicine, Engineering and Technology, Social Science, Physics, and Chemistry articles inside and outside academia. The majority of readers for all disciplines were PhD students, postgraduates, and postdocs but other types of academics were also represented. In addition, many Clinical Medicine articles were read by medical professionals. The highest correlations between citations and Mendeley readership counts were found for types of users who often authored academic articles, except for associate professors in some sub-disciplines. This suggests that Mendeley readership can reflect usage similar to traditional citation impact if the data are restricted to readers who are also authors without the delay of impact measured by citation counts. At the same time, Mendeley statistics can also reveal the hidden impact of some research articles, such as educational value for nonauthor users inside academia or the impact of research articles on practice for readers outside academia.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.9, S.1832-1846

Authors

Types

  • a 55
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications