Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Kousha, K."
  1. Mohammadi, E.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? : a survey of user motivations (2016) 0.05 
    0.054832734 = product of:
  0.10966547 = sum of:
    0.10966547 = product of:
      0.21933094 = sum of:
        0.21933094 = weight(_text_:860 in 2897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21933094 = score(doc=2897,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4347723 = queryWeight, product of:
              9.131938 = idf(docFreq=12, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04761008 = queryNorm
            0.5044731 = fieldWeight in 2897, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              9.131938 = idf(docFreq=12, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2897)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  2. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.01 
    0.008063137 = product of:
  0.016126273 = sum of:
    0.016126273 = product of:
      0.032252546 = sum of:
        0.032252546 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032252546 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1667224 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04761008 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  3. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.01 
    0.008063137 = product of:
  0.016126273 = sum of:
    0.016126273 = product of:
      0.032252546 = sum of:
        0.032252546 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032252546 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1667224 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04761008 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  4. 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) 0.01 
    0.008063137 = product of:
  0.016126273 = sum of:
    0.016126273 = product of:
      0.032252546 = sum of:
        0.032252546 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032252546 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1667224 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04761008 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:11:50

Authors

Years

Themes