-
Shema, H.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Thelwall, M.: How is research blogged? : A content analysis approach (2015)
0.02
0.020299202 = product of:
0.040598404 = sum of:
0.040598404 = product of:
0.08119681 = sum of:
0.08119681 = weight(_text_:90 in 1863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08119681 = score(doc=1863,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.29699144 = fieldWeight in 1863, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1863)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Blogs that cite academic articles have emerged as a potential source of alternative impact metrics for the visibility of the blogged articles. Nevertheless, to evaluate more fully the value of blog citations, it is necessary to investigate whether research blogs focus on particular types of articles or give new perspectives on scientific discourse. Therefore, we studied the characteristics of peer-reviewed references in blogs and the typical content of blog posts to gain insight into bloggers' motivations. The sample consisted of 391 blog posts from 2010 to 2012 in Researchblogging.org's health category. The bloggers mostly cited recent research articles or reviews from top multidisciplinary and general medical journals. Using content analysis methods, we created a general classification scheme for blog post content with 10 major topic categories, each with several subcategories. The results suggest that health research bloggers rarely self-cite and that the vast majority of their blog posts (90%) include a general discussion of the issue covered in the article, with more than one quarter providing health-related advice based on the article(s) covered. These factors suggest a genuine attempt to engage with a wider, nonacademic audience. Nevertheless, almost 30% of the posts included some criticism of the issues being discussed.
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: ¬An automatic method for assessing the teaching impact of books from online academic syllabi (2016)
0.02
0.020299202 = product of:
0.040598404 = sum of:
0.040598404 = product of:
0.08119681 = sum of:
0.08119681 = weight(_text_:90 in 3226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08119681 = score(doc=3226,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.29699144 = fieldWeight in 3226, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3226)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Scholars writing books that are widely used to support teaching in higher education may be undervalued because of a lack of evidence of teaching value. Although sales data may give credible evidence for textbooks, these data may poorly reflect educational uses of other types of books. As an alternative, this article proposes a method to search automatically for mentions of books in online academic course syllabi based on Bing searches for syllabi mentioning a given book, filtering out false matches through an extensive set of rules. The method had an accuracy of over 90% based on manual checks of a sample of 2,600 results from the initial Bing searches. Over one third of about 14,000 monographs checked had one or more academic syllabus mention, with more in the arts and humanities (56%) and social sciences (52%). Low but significant correlations between syllabus mentions and citations across most fields, except the social sciences, suggest that books tend to have different levels of impact for teaching and research. In conclusion, the automatic syllabus search method gives a new way to estimate the educational utility of books in a way that sales data and citation counts cannot.
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
0.013780061 = product of:
0.027560122 = sum of:
0.027560122 = product of:
0.055120245 = sum of:
0.055120245 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055120245 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.01
0.012179969 = product of:
0.024359938 = sum of:
0.024359938 = product of:
0.048719876 = sum of:
0.048719876 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048719876 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011)
0.01
0.010335046 = product of:
0.020670092 = sum of:
0.020670092 = product of:
0.041340183 = sum of:
0.041340183 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041340183 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:27:06
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.01
0.010335046 = product of:
0.020670092 = sum of:
0.020670092 = product of:
0.041340183 = sum of:
0.041340183 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041340183 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.01
0.010335046 = product of:
0.020670092 = sum of:
0.020670092 = product of:
0.041340183 = sum of:
0.041340183 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041340183 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
-
Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018)
0.01
0.010335046 = product of:
0.020670092 = sum of:
0.020670092 = product of:
0.041340183 = sum of:
0.041340183 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041340183 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 28. 7.2018 10:00:22
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.01
0.008612539 = product of:
0.017225077 = sum of:
0.017225077 = product of:
0.034450155 = sum of:
0.034450155 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034450155 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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.
-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.01
0.008612539 = product of:
0.017225077 = sum of:
0.017225077 = product of:
0.034450155 = sum of:
0.034450155 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034450155 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:29:23
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.01
0.008612539 = product of:
0.017225077 = sum of:
0.017225077 = product of:
0.034450155 = sum of:
0.034450155 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034450155 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 6. 4.2012 18:16:22
-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.01
0.008612539 = product of:
0.017225077 = sum of:
0.017225077 = product of:
0.034450155 = sum of:
0.034450155 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034450155 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017)
0.01
0.008612539 = product of:
0.017225077 = sum of:
0.017225077 = product of:
0.034450155 = sum of:
0.034450155 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034450155 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.01
0.008612539 = product of:
0.017225077 = sum of:
0.017225077 = product of:
0.034450155 = sum of:
0.034450155 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034450155 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Why are coauthored academic articles more cited : higher quality or larger audience? (2023)
0.01
0.008612539 = product of:
0.017225077 = sum of:
0.017225077 = product of:
0.034450155 = sum of:
0.034450155 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034450155 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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
