Search (114 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  1. Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006) 0.04 
    0.037378743 = product of:
  0.11213623 = sum of:
    0.024585744 = weight(_text_:und in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024585744 = score(doc=77,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07245795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
    0.027396431 = weight(_text_:zur in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027396431 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.100663416 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.27215877 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.079125 = idf(docFreq=5528, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
    0.00756127 = weight(_text_:in in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00756127 = score(doc=77,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
    0.0407812 = weight(_text_:der in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0407812 = score(doc=77,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.5584417 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
    0.011811584 = product of:
      0.035434753 = sum of:
        0.035434753 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035434753 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(5/15)
    Abstract
    Die Webometrie ist ein Teilbereich der Informationswissenschaft der zur Zeit auf die Analyse von Linkstrukturen konzentriert ist. Er ist stark von der Zitationsanalyse geprägt, wie der empirische Schwerpunkt auf der Wissenschaftsanalyse zeigt. In diesem Beitrag diskutieren wir die Nutzung linkbasierter Maße in einem breiten informetrischen Kontext und bewerten verschiedene Verfahren, auch im Hinblick auf ihr generelles Potentialfür die Sozialwissenschaften. Dabei wird auch ein allgemeiner Rahmenfür Linkanalysen mit den erforderlichen Arbeitsschritten vorgestellt. Abschließend werden vielversprechende zukünftige Anwendungsfelder der Webometrie benannt, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Analyse von Blogs.
    Date
    4.12.2006 12:12:22
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.401-406
  2. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.03 
    0.02815049 = product of:
  0.08445147 = sum of:
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.007472136 = weight(_text_:in in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007472136 = score(doc=586,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.00738224 = product of:
      0.02214672 = sum of:
        0.02214672 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02214672 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(5/15)
    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. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010) 0.03 
    0.02815049 = product of:
  0.08445147 = sum of:
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.007472136 = weight(_text_:in in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007472136 = score(doc=4200,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.00738224 = product of:
      0.02214672 = sum of:
        0.02214672 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02214672 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(5/15)
    Abstract
    A huge number of informal messages are posted every day in social network sites, blogs, and discussion forums. Emotions seem to be frequently important in these texts for expressing friendship, showing social support or as part of online arguments. Algorithms to identify sentiment and sentiment strength are needed to help understand the role of emotion in this informal communication and also to identify inappropriate or anomalous affective utterances, potentially associated with threatening behavior to the self or others. Nevertheless, existing sentiment detection algorithms tend to be commercially oriented, designed to identify opinions about products rather than user behaviors. This article partly fills this gap with a new algorithm, SentiStrength, to extract sentiment strength from informal English text, using new methods to exploit the de facto grammars and spelling styles of cyberspace. Applied to MySpace comments and with a lookup table of term sentiment strengths optimized by machine learning, SentiStrength is able to predict positive emotion with 60.6% accuracy and negative emotion with 72.8% accuracy, both based upon strength scales of 1-5. The former, but not the latter, is better than baseline and a wide range of general machine learning approaches.
    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
  4. Thelwall, M.: Homophily in MySpace (2009) 0.02 
    0.024123197 = product of:
  0.090461984 = sum of:
    0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 2706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02783884 = score(doc=2706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 2706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2706)
    0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 2706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02783884 = score(doc=2706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 2706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2706)
    0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 2706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02783884 = score(doc=2706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 2706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2706)
    0.00694547 = weight(_text_:in in 2706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00694547 = score(doc=2706,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 2706, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2706)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Social network sites like MySpace are increasingly important environments for expressing and maintaining interpersonal connections, but does online communication exacerbate or ameliorate the known tendency for offline friendships to form between similar people (homophily)? This article reports an exploratory study of the similarity between the reported attributes of pairs of active MySpace Friends based upon a systematic sample of 2,567 members joining on June 18, 2007 and Friends who commented on their profile. The results showed no evidence of gender homophily but significant evidence of homophily for ethnicity, religion, age, country, marital status, attitude towards children, sexual orientation, and reason for joining MySpace. There were also some imbalances: women and the young were disproportionately commenters, and commenters tended to have more Friends than commentees. Overall, it seems that although traditional sources of homophily are thriving in MySpace networks of active public connections, gender homophily has completely disappeared. Finally, the method used has wide potential for investigating and partially tracking homophily in society, providing early warning of socially divisive trends.
    Date
    23. 2.2009 19:32:25
  5. Wilkinson, D.; Thelwall, M.: Trending Twitter topics in English : an international comparison (2012) 0.02 
    0.020916866 = product of:
  0.078438245 = sum of:
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=375,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 375, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=375)
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=375,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 375, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=375)
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=375,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 375, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=375)
    0.008841151 = weight(_text_:in in 375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008841151 = score(doc=375,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 375, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=375)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    The worldwide span of the microblogging service Twitter provides an opportunity to make international comparisons of trending topics of interest, such as news stories. Previous international comparisons of news interests have tended to use surveys and may bypass topics not well covered in the mainstream media. This study uses 9 months of English-language Tweets from the United Kingdom, United States, India, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia. Based upon the top 50 trending keywords in each country from the 0.5 billion Tweets collected, festivals or religious events are the most common, followed by media events, politics, human interest, and sports. U.S. trending topics have the most interest in the other countries and Indian trending topics the least. Conversely, India is the most interested in other countries' trending topics and the United States the least. This gives evidence of an international hierarchy of perceived importance or relevance with some issues, such as the international interest in U.S. Thanksgiving celebrations, apparently not being directly driven by the media. This hierarchy echoes, and may be caused by, similar news coverage trends. Although the current imbalanced international news coverage does not seem to be out of step with public news interests, the political implication is that the Twitter-using public reflects, and hence seems to implicitly accept, international imbalances in news media agenda setting rather than combating them. This is an issue for those believing that these imbalances make the media too powerful.
    Date
    26. 8.2012 13:57:23
  6. Abrizah, A.; Thelwall, M.: Can the impact of non-Western academic books be measured? : an investigation of Google Books and Google Scholar for Malaysia (2014) 0.02 
    0.020916866 = product of:
  0.078438245 = sum of:
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=1548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=1548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=1548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
    0.008841151 = weight(_text_:in in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008841151 = score(doc=1548,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Citation indicators are increasingly used in book-based disciplines to support peer review in the evaluation of authors and to gauge the prestige of publishers. However, because global citation databases seem to offer weak coverage of books outside the West, it is not clear whether the influence of non-Western books can be assessed with citations. To investigate this, citations were extracted from Google Books and Google Scholar to 1,357 arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS) books published by 5 university presses during 1961-2012 in 1 non-Western nation, Malaysia. A significant minority of the books (23% in Google Books and 37% in Google Scholar, 45% in total) had been cited, with a higher proportion cited if they were older or in English. The combination of Google Books and Google Scholar is therefore recommended, with some provisos, for non-Western countries seeking to differentiate between books with some impact and books with no impact, to identify the highly-cited works or to develop an indicator of academic publisher prestige.
  7. Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.: Scholars on soap boxes : science communication and dissemination in TED videos (2013) 0.02 
    0.020551795 = product of:
  0.07706923 = sum of:
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
    0.007472136 = weight(_text_:in in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007472136 = score(doc=678,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Online videos provide a novel, and often interactive, platform for the popularization of science. One successful collection is hosted on the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) website. This study uses a range of bibliometric (citation) and webometric (usage and bookmarking) indicators to examine TED videos in order to provide insights into the type and scope of their impact. The results suggest that TED Talks impact primarily the public sphere, with about three-quarters of a billion total views, rather than the academic realm. Differences were found among broad disciplinary areas, with art and design videos having generally lower levels of impact but science and technology videos generating otherwise average impact for TED. Many of the metrics were only loosely related, but there was a general consensus about the most popular videos as measured through views or comments on YouTube and the TED site. Moreover, most videos were found in at least one online syllabus and videos in online syllabi tended to be more viewed, discussed, and blogged. Less-liked videos generated more discussion, although this may be because they are more controversial. Science and technology videos presented by academics were more liked than those by nonacademics, showing that academics are not disadvantaged in this new media environment.
    Date
    23. 3.2013 12:27:42
  8. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Vis, F.: Commenting on YouTube videos : From guatemalan rock to El Big Bang (2012) 0.02 
    0.020102665 = product of:
  0.07538499 = sum of:
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
    0.0057878923 = weight(_text_:in in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0057878923 = score(doc=63,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    YouTube is one of the world's most popular websites and hosts numerous amateur and professional videos. Comments on these videos might be researched to give insights into audience reactions to important issues or particular videos. Yet, little is known about YouTube discussions in general: how frequent they are, who typically participates, and the role of sentiment. This article fills this gap through an analysis of large samples of text comments on YouTube videos. The results identify patterns and give some benchmarks against which future YouTube research into individual videos can be compared. For instance, the typical YouTube comment was mildly positive, was posted by a 29-year-old male, and contained 58 characters. About 23% of comments in the complete comment sets were replies to previous comments. There was no typical density of discussion on YouTube videos in the sense of the proportion of replies to other comments: videos with both few and many replies were common. The YouTube audience engaged with each other disproportionately when making negative comments, however; positive comments elicited few replies. The biggest trigger of discussion seemed to be religion, whereas the videos attracting the least discussion were predominantly from the Music, Comedy, and How to & Style categories. This suggests different audience uses for YouTube, from passive entertainment to active debating.
  9. Thelwall, M.: Web indicators for research evaluation : a practical guide (2016) 0.01 
    0.006250685 = product of:
  0.046880137 = sum of:
    0.040196855 = weight(_text_:software in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040196855 = score(doc=3384,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12969498 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.30993375 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
    0.0066832816 = weight(_text_:in in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066832816 = score(doc=3384,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    In recent years there has been an increasing demand for research evaluation within universities and other research-based organisations. In parallel, there has been an increasing recognition that traditional citation-based indicators are not able to reflect the societal impacts of research and are slow to appear. This has led to the creation of new indicators for different types of research impact as well as timelier indicators, mainly derived from the Web. These indicators have been called altmetrics, webometrics or just web metrics. This book describes and evaluates a range of web indicators for aspects of societal or scholarly impact, discusses the theory and practice of using and evaluating web indicators for research assessment and outlines practical strategies for obtaining many web indicators. In addition to describing impact indicators for traditional scholarly outputs, such as journal articles and monographs, it also covers indicators for videos, datasets, software and other non-standard scholarly outputs. The book describes strategies to analyse web indicators for individual publications as well as to compare the impacts of groups of publications. The practical part of the book includes descriptions of how to use the free software Webometric Analyst to gather and analyse web data. This book is written for information science undergraduate and Master?s students that are learning about alternative indicators or scientometrics as well as Ph.D. students and other researchers and practitioners using indicators to help assess research impact or to study scholarly communication.
    Footnote
    Rez. in: JASIST 69(2018) no.3, S.498-499 (Isidro F. Aguillo).
  10. Thelwall, M.; Prabowo, R.: Identifying and characterizing public science-related fears from RSS feeds (2007) 0.01 
    0.005303882 = product of:
  0.03977911 = sum of:
    0.03410816 = weight(_text_:software in 137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03410816 = score(doc=137,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12969498 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 137, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=137)
    0.005670953 = weight(_text_:in in 137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005670953 = score(doc=137,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 137, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=137)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    A feature of modern democracies is public mistrust of scientists and the politicization of science policy, e.g., concerning stem cell research and genetically modified food. While the extent of this mistrust is debatable, its political influence is tangible. Hence, science policy researchers and science policy makers need early warning of issues that resonate with a wide public so that they can make timely and informed decisions. In this article, a semi-automatic method for identifying significant public science-related concerns from a corpus of Internet-based RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds is described and shown to be an improvement on a previous similar system because of the introduction of feedbased aggregation. In addition, both the RSS corpus and the concept of public science-related fears are deconstructed, revealing hidden complexity. This article also provides evidence that genetically modified organisms and stem cell research were the two major policyrelevant science concern issues, although mobile phone radiation and software security also generated significant interest.
  11. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009) 0.00 
    0.002728665 = product of:
  0.020464987 = sum of:
    0.010024922 = weight(_text_:in in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010024922 = score(doc=2734,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.010440065 = product of:
      0.031320192 = sum of:
        0.031320192 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031320192 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    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
  12. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011) 0.00 
    0.0025957427 = product of:
  0.01946807 = sum of:
    0.010609381 = weight(_text_:in in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010609381 = score(doc=4345,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
    0.008858688 = product of:
      0.026576065 = sum of:
        0.026576065 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026576065 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    The microblogging site Twitter generates a constant stream of communication, some of which concerns events of general interest. An analysis of Twitter may, therefore, give insights into why particular events resonate with the population. This article reports a study of a month of English Twitter posts, assessing whether popular events are typically associated with increases in sentiment strength, as seems intuitively likely. Using the top 30 events, determined by a measure of relative increase in (general) term usage, the results give strong evidence that popular events are normally associated with increases in negative sentiment strength and some evidence that peaks of interest in events have stronger positive sentiment than the time before the peak. It seems that many positive events, such as the Oscars, are capable of generating increased negative sentiment in reaction to them. Nevertheless, the surprisingly small average change in sentiment associated with popular events (typically 1% and only 6% for Tiger Woods' confessions) is consistent with events affording posters opportunities to satisfy pre-existing personal goals more often than eliciting instinctive reactions.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:27:06
  13. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.00 
    0.002490809 = product of:
  0.018681066 = sum of:
    0.009822378 = weight(_text_:in in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009822378 = score(doc=2856,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
    0.008858688 = product of:
      0.026576065 = sum of:
        0.026576065 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026576065 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    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
  14. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.00 
    0.0022445105 = product of:
  0.016833827 = sum of:
    0.009451588 = weight(_text_:in in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009451588 = score(doc=2593,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.00738224 = product of:
      0.02214672 = sum of:
        0.02214672 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02214672 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    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
    Object
    Research Papers in Economics
  15. 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 
    0.002163119 = product of:
  0.016223392 = sum of:
    0.008841151 = weight(_text_:in in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008841151 = score(doc=995,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.00738224 = product of:
      0.02214672 = sum of:
        0.02214672 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02214672 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:11:50
  16. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.00 
    0.0021072212 = product of:
  0.015804159 = sum of:
    0.00694547 = weight(_text_:in in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00694547 = score(doc=4291,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
    0.008858688 = product of:
      0.026576065 = sum of:
        0.026576065 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026576065 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    Counts of tweets and Mendeley user libraries have been proposed as altmetric alternatives to citation counts for the impact assessment of articles. Although both have been investigated to discover whether they correlate with article citations, it is not known whether users tend to tweet or save (in Mendeley) the same kinds of articles that they cite. In response, this article compares pairs of articles that are tweeted, saved to a Mendeley library, or cited by the same user, but possibly a different user for each source. The study analyzes 1,131,318 articles published in 2012, with minimum tweeted (10), saved to Mendeley (100), and cited (10) thresholds. The results show surprisingly minor overall overlaps between the three phenomena. The importance of journals for Twitter and the presence of many bots at different levels of activity suggest that this site has little value for impact altmetrics. The moderate differences between patterns of saving and citation suggest that Mendeley can be used for some types of impact assessments, but sensitivity is needed for underlying differences.
    Date
    28. 7.2018 10:00:22
  17. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.00 
    0.0019372856 = product of:
  0.014529642 = sum of:
    0.005670953 = weight(_text_:in in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005670953 = score(doc=3211,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
    0.008858688 = product of:
      0.026576065 = sum of:
        0.026576065 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026576065 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    Scientists and managers using citation-based indicators to help evaluate research cannot evaluate recent articles because of the time needed for citations to accrue. Reading occurs before citing, however, and so it makes sense to count readers rather than citations for recent publications. To assess this, Mendeley readers and citations were obtained for articles from 2004 to late 2014 in five broad categories (agriculture, business, decision science, pharmacy, and the social sciences) and 50 subcategories. In these areas, citation counts tended to increase with every extra year since publication, and readership counts tended to increase faster initially but then stabilize after about 5 years. The correlation between citations and readers was also higher for longer time periods, stabilizing after about 5 years. Although there were substantial differences between broad fields and smaller differences between subfields, the results confirm the value of Mendeley reader counts as early scientific impact indicators.
    Date
    16.11.2016 11:07:22
  18. Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020) 0.00 
    0.001875403 = product of:
  0.014065522 = sum of:
    0.0066832816 = weight(_text_:in in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066832816 = score(doc=178,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
    0.00738224 = product of:
      0.02214672 = sum of:
        0.02214672 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02214672 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    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
  19. Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017) 0.00 
    0.0017560178 = product of:
  0.013170132 = sum of:
    0.0057878923 = weight(_text_:in in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0057878923 = score(doc=3806,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
    0.00738224 = product of:
      0.02214672 = sum of:
        0.02214672 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02214672 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    Purpose Mendeley reader counts have been proposed as early indicators for the impact of academic publications. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether there are enough Mendeley readers for research evaluation purposes during the month when an article is first published. Design/methodology/approach Average Mendeley reader counts were compared to the average Scopus citation counts for 104,520 articles from ten disciplines during the second half of 2016. Findings Articles attracted, on average, between 0.1 and 0.8 Mendeley readers per article in the month in which they first appeared in Scopus. This is about ten times more than the average Scopus citation count. Research limitations/implications Other disciplines may use Mendeley more or less than the ten investigated here. The results are dependent on Scopus's indexing practices, and Mendeley reader counts can be manipulated and have national and seniority biases. Practical implications Mendeley reader counts during the month of publication are more powerful than Scopus citations for comparing the average impacts of groups of documents but are not high enough to differentiate between the impacts of typical individual articles. Originality/value This is the first multi-disciplinary and systematic analysis of Mendeley reader counts from the publication month of an article.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  20. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.00 
    0.0016144046 = product of:
  0.0121080335 = sum of:
    0.004725794 = weight(_text_:in in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004725794 = score(doc=57,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
    0.00738224 = product of:
      0.02214672 = sum of:
        0.02214672 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02214672 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    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

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 113
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 113
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications