-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.00
0.0019664785 = product of:
0.029497176 = sum of:
0.029497176 = sum of:
0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009866543 = score(doc=178,freq=8.0), product of:
0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.028978055 = queryNorm
0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019630633 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.028978055 = 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)
0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
- Abstract
- Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 72(2020) no.6, S.945-962
-
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
0.0016375937 = product of:
0.024563905 = sum of:
0.024563905 = sum of:
0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0049332716 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.028978055 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019630633 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.028978055 = 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)
0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.791-810
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Do new research issues attract more citations? : a comparison between 25 Scopus subject categories (2021)
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 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0069766995 = score(doc=157,freq=4.0), product of:
0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.028978055 = queryNorm
0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 157, 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=157)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
- Abstract
- Finding new ways to help researchers and administrators understand academic fields is an important task for information scientists. Given the importance of interdisciplinary research, it is essential to be aware of disciplinary differences in aspects of scholarship, such as the significance of recent changes in a field. This paper identifies potential changes in 25 subject categories through a term comparison of words in article titles, keywords and abstracts in 1 year compared to the previous 4 years. The scholarly influence of new research issues is indirectly assessed with a citation analysis of articles matching each trending term. While topic-related words dominate the top terms, style, national focus, and language changes are also evident. Thus, as reflected in Scopus, fields evolve along multiple dimensions. Moreover, while articles exploiting new issues are usually more cited in some fields, such as Organic Chemistry, they are usually less cited in others, including History. The possible causes of new issues being less cited include externally driven temporary factors, such as disease outbreaks, and internally driven temporary decisions, such as a deliberate emphasis on a single topic (e.g., through a journal special issue).
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.3, S.269-279
-
Thelwall, M.; Foster, D.: Male or female gender-polarized YouTube videos are less viewed (2021)
0.00
1.9733087E-4 = product of:
0.002959963 = sum of:
0.002959963 = product of:
0.005919926 = sum of:
0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005919926 = score(doc=414,freq=2.0), product of:
0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.028978055 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 414, 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=414)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.12, S.1528-1544
-
Thelwall, M.: Female citation impact superiority 1996-2018 in six out of seven English-speaking nations (2020)
0.00
1.6444239E-4 = product of:
0.0024666358 = sum of:
0.0024666358 = product of:
0.0049332716 = sum of:
0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 5948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0049332716 = score(doc=5948,freq=2.0), product of:
0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.028978055 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5948, 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=5948)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.8, S.979-990
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Academic collaboration rates and citation associations vary substantially between countries and fields (2020)
0.00
1.6444239E-4 = product of:
0.0024666358 = sum of:
0.0024666358 = product of:
0.0049332716 = sum of:
0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 5952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0049332716 = score(doc=5952,freq=2.0), product of:
0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.028978055 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5952, 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=5952)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.8, S.968-978
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Do altmetric scores reflect article quality? : evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 (2023)
0.00
1.6444239E-4 = product of:
0.0024666358 = sum of:
0.0024666358 = product of:
0.0049332716 = sum of:
0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0049332716 = score(doc=947,freq=2.0), product of:
0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.028978055 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 947, 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=947)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.5, S.582-593
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Abdoli, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: In which fields are citations indicators of research quality? (2023)
0.00
1.6444239E-4 = product of:
0.0024666358 = sum of:
0.0024666358 = product of:
0.0049332716 = sum of:
0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 1033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0049332716 = score(doc=1033,freq=2.0), product of:
0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.028978055 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1033, 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=1033)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.8, S.941-953
