Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008848977 = product of:
  0.017697955 = sum of:
    0.017697955 = product of:
      0.03539591 = sum of:
        0.03539591 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03539591 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18297131 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.

0.008848977 = product of:
  0.017697955 = sum of:
    0.017697955 = product of:
      0.03539591 = sum of:
        0.03539591 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03539591 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18297131 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.008848977 = product of:
  0.017697955 = sum of:
    0.017697955 = product of:
      0.03539591 = sum of:
        0.03539591 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03539591 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18297131 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50

0.0073736827 = product of:
  0.014747365 = sum of:
    0.014747365 = product of:
      0.02949473 = sum of:
        0.02949473 = weight(_text_:5 in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02949473 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.19344449 = fieldWeight in 1813, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1813)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.5, S.876-889

0.0061447355 = product of:
  0.012289471 = sum of:
    0.012289471 = product of:
      0.024578942 = sum of:
        0.024578942 = weight(_text_:5 in 1614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024578942 = score(doc=1614,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 1614, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1614)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.5, S.805-815

0.0061447355 = product of:
  0.012289471 = sum of:
    0.012289471 = product of:
      0.024578942 = sum of:
        0.024578942 = weight(_text_:5 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024578942 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%-5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.

0.0061447355 = product of:
  0.012289471 = sum of:
    0.012289471 = product of:
      0.024578942 = sum of:
        0.024578942 = weight(_text_:5 in 2897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024578942 = score(doc=2897,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 2897, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2897)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.5, S.1198-1209

0.0061447355 = product of:
  0.012289471 = sum of:
    0.012289471 = product of:
      0.024578942 = sum of:
        0.024578942 = weight(_text_:5 in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024578942 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0061447355 = product of:
  0.012289471 = sum of:
    0.012289471 = product of:
      0.024578942 = sum of:
        0.024578942 = weight(_text_:5 in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024578942 = score(doc=947,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 947, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=947)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.5, S.582-593