Search (117 results, page 1 of 6)

0.030690184 = product of:
  0.09207055 = sum of:
    0.009289869 = weight(_text_:a in 4908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009289869 = score(doc=4908,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4908, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4908)
    0.08278068 = weight(_text_:68 in 4908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08278068 = score(doc=4908,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23180789 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.35710898 = fieldWeight in 4908, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4908)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Link analysis in various forms is now an established technique in many different subjects, reflecting the perceived importance of links and of the Web. A critical but very difficult issue is how to interpret the results of social science link analyses. lt is argued that the dynamic nature of the Web, its lack of quality control, and the online proliferation of copying and imitation mean that methodologies operating within a highly positivist, quantitative framework are ineffective. Conversely, the sheer variety of the Web makes application of qualitative methodologies and pure reason very problematic to large-scale studies. Methodology triangulation is consequently advocated, in combination with a warning that the Web is incapable of giving definitive answers to large-scale link analysis research questions concerning social factors underlying link creation. Finally, it is claimed that although theoretical frameworks are appropriate for guiding research, a Theory of Link Analysis is not possible.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.1, S.60-68

Type

a

0.030420378 = product of:
  0.09126113 = sum of:
    0.008480453 = weight(_text_:a in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008480453 = score(doc=3598,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
    0.08278068 = weight(_text_:68 in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08278068 = score(doc=3598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23180789 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.35710898 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Although gender differences are known to exist in the publishing industry and in reader preferences, there is little public systematic data about them. This article uses evidence from the book-based social website Goodreads to provide a large scale analysis of 50 major English book genres based on author genders. The results show gender differences in authorship in almost all categories and gender differences the level of interest in, and ratings of, books in a minority of categories. Perhaps surprisingly in this context, there is not a clear gender-based relationship between the success of an author and their prevalence within a genre. The unexpected almost universal authorship gender differences should give new impetus to investigations of the importance of gender in fiction and the success of minority genders in some genres should encourage publishers and librarians to take their work seriously, except perhaps for most male-authored chick-lit.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.5, S.1212-1223

Type

a

0.030121943 = product of:
  0.09036583 = sum of:
    0.007585147 = weight(_text_:a in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007585147 = score(doc=1258,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
    0.08278068 = weight(_text_:68 in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08278068 = score(doc=1258,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23180789 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.35710898 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Journal-based citations are an important source of data for impact indices. However, the impact of journal articles extends beyond formal scholarly discourse. Measuring online scholarly impact calls for new indices, complementary to the older ones. This article examines a possible alternative metric source, blog posts aggregated at ResearchBlogging.org, which discuss peer-reviewed articles and provide full bibliographic references. Articles reviewed in these blogs therefore receive "blog citations." We hypothesized that articles receiving blog citations close to their publication time receive more journal citations later than the articles in the same journal published in the same year that did not receive such blog citations. Statistically significant evidence for articles published in 2009 and 2010 support this hypothesis for seven of 12 journals (58%) in 2009 and 13 of 19 journals (68%) in 2010. We suggest, based on these results, that blog citations can be used as an alternative metric source.

Type

a

0.029381398 = product of:
  0.08814419 = sum of:
    0.0053635086 = weight(_text_:a in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053635086 = score(doc=3764,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
    0.08278068 = weight(_text_:68 in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08278068 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23180789 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.35710898 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Patents sometimes cite webpages either as general background to the problem being addressed or to identify prior publications that limit the scope of the patent granted. Counts of the number of patents citing an organization's website may therefore provide an indicator of its technological capacity or relevance. This article introduces methods to extract URL citations from patents and evaluates the usefulness of counts of patent web citations as a technology indicator. An analysis of patents citing 200 US universities or 177 UK universities found computer science and engineering departments to be frequently cited, as well as research-related webpages, such as Wikipedia, YouTube, or the Internet Archive. Overall, however, patent URL citations seem to be frequent enough to be useful for ranking major US and the top few UK universities if popular hosted subdomains are filtered out, but the hit count estimates on the first search engine results page should not be relied upon for accuracy.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.1967-1974

Type

a

0.026326068 = product of:
  0.0789782 = sum of:
    0.009994308 = weight(_text_:a in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009994308 = score(doc=3766,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
    0.0689839 = weight(_text_:68 in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0689839 = score(doc=3766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23180789 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.29759082 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

Type

a

0.025974361 = product of:
  0.07792308 = sum of:
    0.008939181 = weight(_text_:a in 3534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008939181 = score(doc=3534,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3534, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3534)
    0.0689839 = weight(_text_:68 in 3534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0689839 = score(doc=3534,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23180789 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.29759082 = fieldWeight in 3534, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3534)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Goodreads is an Amazon-owned book-based social web site for members to share books, read, review books, rate books, and connect with other readers. Goodreads has tens of millions of book reviews, recommendations, and ratings that may help librarians and readers to select relevant books. This article describes a first investigation of the properties of Goodreads users, using a random sample of 50,000 members. The results suggest that about three quarters of members with a public profile are female, and that there is little difference between male and female users in patterns of behavior, except for females registering more books and rating them less positively. Goodreads librarians and super-users engage extensively with most features of the site. The absence of strong correlations between book-based and social usage statistics (e.g., numbers of friends, followers, books, reviews, and ratings) suggests that members choose their own individual balance of social and book activities and rarely ignore one at the expense of the other. Goodreads is therefore neither primarily a book-based website nor primarily a social network site but is a genuine hybrid, social navigation site.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.4, S.972-983

Type

a

0.025575152 = product of:
  0.07672545 = sum of:
    0.0077415584 = weight(_text_:a in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0077415584 = score(doc=3440,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
    0.0689839 = weight(_text_:68 in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0689839 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23180789 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.29759082 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Individual academics and research evaluators often need to assess the value of published research. Although citation counts are a recognized indicator of scholarly impact, alternative data is needed to provide evidence of other types of impact, including within education and wider society. Wikipedia is a logical choice for both of these because the role of a general encyclopaedia is to be an understandable repository of facts about a diverse array of topics and hence it may cite research to support its claims. To test whether Wikipedia could provide new evidence about the impact of scholarly research, this article counted citations to 302,328 articles and 18,735 monographs in English indexed by Scopus in the period 2005 to 2012. The results show that citations from Wikipedia to articles are too rare for most research evaluation purposes, with only 5% of articles being cited in all fields. In contrast, a third of monographs have at least one citation from Wikipedia, with the most in the arts and humanities. Hence, Wikipedia citations can provide extra impact evidence for academic monographs. Nevertheless, the results may be relatively easily manipulated and so Wikipedia is not recommended for evaluations affecting stakeholder interests.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.3, S.762-779

Type

a

0.025350315 = product of:
  0.076050945 = sum of:
    0.007067044 = weight(_text_:a in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007067044 = score(doc=3760,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
    0.0689839 = weight(_text_:68 in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0689839 = score(doc=3760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23180789 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.29759082 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

Type

a

0.025350315 = product of:
  0.076050945 = sum of:
    0.007067044 = weight(_text_:a in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007067044 = score(doc=3768,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3768, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3768)
    0.0689839 = weight(_text_:68 in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0689839 = score(doc=3768,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23180789 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.29759082 = fieldWeight in 3768, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3768)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Although peer-review and citation counts are commonly used to help assess the scholarly impact of published research, informal reader feedback might also be exploited to help assess the wider impacts of books, such as their educational or cultural value. The social website Goodreads seems to be a reasonable source for this purpose because it includes a large number of book reviews and ratings by many users inside and outside of academia. To check this, Goodreads book metrics were compared with different book-based impact indicators for 15,928 academic books across broad fields. Goodreads engagements were numerous enough in the arts (85% of books had at least one), humanities (80%), and social sciences (67%) for use as a source of impact evidence. Low and moderate correlations between Goodreads book metrics and scholarly or non-scholarly indicators suggest that reader feedback in Goodreads reflects the many purposes of books rather than a single type of impact. Although Goodreads book metrics can be manipulated, they could be used guardedly by academics, authors, and publishers in evaluations.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.2004-2016

Type

a

0.025101617 = product of:
  0.07530485 = sum of:
    0.006320955 = weight(_text_:a in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006320955 = score(doc=3317,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
    0.0689839 = weight(_text_:68 in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0689839 = score(doc=3317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23180789 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.29759082 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Citations from patents to scientific publications provide useful evidence about the commercial impact of academic research, but automatically searchable databases are needed to exploit this connection for large-scale patent citation evaluations. Google covers multiple different international patent office databases but does not index patent citations or allow automatic searches. In response, this article introduces a semiautomatic indirect method via Bing to extract and filter patent citations from Google to academic papers with an overall precision of 98%. The method was evaluated with 322,192 science and engineering Scopus articles from every second year for the period 1996-2012. Although manual Google Patent searches give more results, especially for articles with many patent citations, the difference is not large enough to be a major problem. Within Biomedical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Pharmacology & Pharmaceutics, 7% to 10% of Scopus articles had at least one patent citation but other fields had far fewer, so patent citation analysis is only relevant for a minority of publications. Low but positive correlations between Google Patent citations and Scopus citations across all fields suggest that traditional citation counts cannot substitute for patent citations when evaluating research.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.48-61

Type

a

0.024819335 = product of:
  0.074458 = sum of:
    0.0054741087 = weight(_text_:a in 3349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054741087 = score(doc=3349,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3349, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3349)
    0.0689839 = weight(_text_:68 in 3349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0689839 = score(doc=3349,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23180789 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.29759082 = fieldWeight in 3349, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3349)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The large multidisciplinary academic social website ResearchGate aims to help academics to connect with each other and to publicize their work. Despite its popularity, little is known about the age and discipline of the articles uploaded and viewed in the site and whether publication statistics from the site could be useful impact indicators. In response, this article assesses samples of ResearchGate articles uploaded at specific dates, comparing their views in the site to their Mendeley readers and Scopus-indexed citations. This analysis shows that ResearchGate is dominated by recent articles, which attract about three times as many views as older articles. ResearchGate has uneven coverage of scholarship, with the arts and humanities, health professions, and decision sciences poorly represented and some fields receiving twice as many views per article as others. View counts for uploaded articles have low to moderate positive correlations with both Scopus citations and Mendeley readers, which is consistent with them tending to reflect a wider audience than Scopus-publishing scholars. Hence, for articles uploaded to the site, view counts may give a genuinely new audience indicator.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.2, S.468-479

Type

a

0.009459104 = product of:
  0.028377313 = sum of:
    0.0050567645 = weight(_text_:a in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050567645 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
    0.023320548 = product of:
      0.046641096 = sum of:
        0.046641096 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046641096 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15068802 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043031227 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

Type

a

0.008695586 = product of:
  0.026086757 = sum of:
    0.0054741087 = weight(_text_:a in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054741087 = score(doc=2734,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.020612648 = product of:
      0.041225296 = sum of:
        0.041225296 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041225296 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15068802 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043031227 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

Type

a

0.008656955 = product of:
  0.025970865 = sum of:
    0.008480453 = weight(_text_:a in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008480453 = score(doc=4345,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
    0.017490411 = product of:
      0.034980822 = sum of:
        0.034980822 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034980822 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15068802 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043031227 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

Type

a

0.008019781 = product of:
  0.02405934 = sum of:
    0.00656893 = weight(_text_:a in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00656893 = score(doc=4291,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
    0.017490411 = product of:
      0.034980822 = sum of:
        0.034980822 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034980822 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15068802 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043031227 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

Type

a

0.0076179737 = product of:
  0.02285392 = sum of:
    0.0053635086 = weight(_text_:a in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053635086 = score(doc=2856,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
    0.017490411 = product of:
      0.034980822 = sum of:
        0.034980822 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034980822 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15068802 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043031227 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

Type

a

0.007438967 = product of:
  0.022316901 = sum of:
    0.0077415584 = weight(_text_:a in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0077415584 = score(doc=4200,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.014575343 = product of:
      0.029150685 = sum of:
        0.029150685 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029150685 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15068802 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043031227 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

Type

a

0.007214129 = product of:
  0.021642387 = sum of:
    0.007067044 = weight(_text_:a in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007067044 = score(doc=178,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
    0.014575343 = product of:
      0.029150685 = sum of:
        0.029150685 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029150685 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15068802 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043031227 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

Type

a

0.0070943283 = product of:
  0.021282984 = sum of:
    0.0037925735 = weight(_text_:a in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0037925735 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
    0.017490411 = product of:
      0.034980822 = sum of:
        0.034980822 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034980822 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15068802 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043031227 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

Type

a

0.0069654323 = product of:
  0.020896297 = sum of:
    0.006320955 = weight(_text_:a in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006320955 = score(doc=586,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.014575343 = product of:
      0.029150685 = sum of:
        0.029150685 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029150685 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15068802 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043031227 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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.

Type

a