Search (27 results, page 1 of 2)

0.036313996 = product of:
  0.05447099 = sum of:
    0.03603666 = weight(_text_:im in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03603666 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.24985497 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
    0.01843433 = product of:
      0.055302992 = sum of:
        0.055302992 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055302992 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.013874464 = product of:
  0.04162339 = sum of:
    0.04162339 = product of:
      0.062435087 = sum of:
        0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025961377 = score(doc=4626,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
        0.03647371 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03647371 = score(doc=4626,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The primary webometric method for estimating the online impact of an organization is to count links to its website. Link counts have been available from commercial search engines for over a decade but this was set to end by early 2012 and so a replacement is needed. This article compares link counts to two alternative methods: URL citations and organization title mentions. New variations of these methods are also introduced. The three methods are compared against each other using Yahoo!. Two of the three methods (URL citations and organization title mentions) are also compared against each other using Bing. Evidence from a case study of 131 UK universities and 49 US Library and Information Science (LIS) departments suggests that Bing's Hit Count Estimates (HCEs) for popular title searches are not useful for webometric research but that Yahoo!'s HCEs for all three types of search and Bing's URL citation HCEs seem to be consistent. For exact URL counts the results of all three methods in Yahoo! and both methods in Bing are also consistent. Four types of accuracy factors are also introduced and defined: search engine coverage, search engine retrieval variation, search engine retrieval anomalies, and query polysemy.

0.0076319277 = product of:
  0.022895783 = sum of:
    0.022895783 = product of:
      0.06868735 = sum of:
        0.06868735 = weight(_text_:online in 1614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06868735 = score(doc=1614,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.4435766 = fieldWeight in 1614, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1614)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Open-access online publication has made available an increasingly wide range of document types for scientometric analysis. In this article, we focus on citations in online presentations, seeking evidence of their value as nontraditional indicators of research impact. For this purpose, we searched for online PowerPoint files mentioning any one of 1,807 ISI-indexed journals in ten science and ten social science disciplines. We also manually classified 1,378 online PowerPoint citations to journals in eight additional science and social science disciplines. The results showed that very few journals were cited frequently enough in online PowerPoint files to make impact assessment worthwhile, with the main exceptions being popular magazines like Scientific American and Harvard Business Review. Surprisingly, however, there was little difference overall in the number of PowerPoint citations to science and to the social sciences, and also in the proportion representing traditional impact (about 60%) and wider impact (about 15%). It seems that the main scientometric value for online presentations may be in tracking the popularization of research, or for comparing the impact of whole journals rather than individual articles.

0.006450157 = product of:
  0.019350471 = sum of:
    0.019350471 = product of:
      0.05805141 = sum of:
        0.05805141 = weight(_text_:online in 2123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05805141 = score(doc=2123,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.37489069 = fieldWeight in 2123, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2123)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The quality and impact of academic Web sites is of interest to many audiences, including the scholars who use them and Web educators who need to identify best practice. Several large-scale European Union research projects have been funded to build new indicators for online scientific activity, reflecting recognition of the importance of the Web for scholarly communication. In this paper we address the key question of whether higher rated scholars produce higher impact Web sites, using the United Kingdom as a case study and measuring scholars' quality in terms of university-wide average research ratings. Methodological issues concerning the measurement of the online impact are discussed, leading to the adoption of counts of links to a university's constituent single domain Web sites from an aggregated counting metric. The findings suggest that universities with higher rated scholars produce significantly more Web content but with a similar average online impact. Higher rated scholars therefore attract more total links from their peers, but only by being more prolific, refuting earlier suggestions. It can be surmised that general Web publications are very different from scholarly journal articles and conference papers, for which scholarly quality does associate with citation impact. This has important implications for the construction of new Web indicators, for example that online impact should not be used to assess the quality of small groups of scholars, even within a single discipline.

0.0054312674 = product of:
  0.016293801 = sum of:
    0.016293801 = product of:
      0.0488814 = sum of:
        0.0488814 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0488814 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.00499627 = product of:
  0.01498881 = sum of:
    0.01498881 = product of:
      0.04496643 = sum of:
        0.04496643 = weight(_text_:online in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04496643 = score(doc=382,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although there is some evidence that online videos are increasingly used by academics for informal scholarly communication and teaching, the extent to which they are used in published academic research is unknown. This article explores the extent to which YouTube videos are cited in academic publications and whether there are significant broad disciplinary differences in this practice. To investigate, we extracted the URL citations to YouTube videos from academic publications indexed by Scopus. A total of 1,808 Scopus publications cited at least one YouTube video, and there was a steady upward growth in citing online videos within scholarly publications from 2006 to 2011, with YouTube citations being most common within arts and humanities (0.3%) and the social sciences (0.2%). A content analysis of 551 YouTube videos cited by research articles indicated that in science (78%) and in medicine and health sciences (77%), over three fourths of the cited videos had either direct scientific (e.g., laboratory experiments) or scientific-related contents (e.g., academic lectures or education) whereas in the arts and humanities, about 80% of the YouTube videos had art, culture, or history themes, and in the social sciences, about 63% of the videos were related to news, politics, advertisements, and documentaries. This shows both the disciplinary differences and the wide variety of innovative research communication uses found for videos within the different subject areas.

0.004895325 = product of:
  0.0146859735 = sum of:
    0.0146859735 = product of:
      0.04405792 = sum of:
        0.04405792 = weight(_text_:online in 3906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04405792 = score(doc=3906,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.284522 = fieldWeight in 3906, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3906)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Webometrics is an information science field concerned with measuring aspects of the World Wide Web (WWW) for a variety of information science research goals. It came into existence about five years after the Web was formed and has since grown to become a significant aspect of information science, at least in terms of published research. Although some webometrics research has focused on the structure or evolution of the Web itself or the performance of commercial search engines, most has used data from the Web to shed light on information provision or online communication in various contexts. Most prominently, techniques have been developed to track, map, and assess Web-based informal scholarly communication, for example, in terms of the hyperlinks between academic Web sites or the online impact of digital repositories. In addition, a range of nonacademic issues and groups of Web users have also been analyzed.

0.004895325 = product of:
  0.0146859735 = sum of:
    0.0146859735 = product of:
      0.04405792 = sum of:
        0.04405792 = weight(_text_:online in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04405792 = score(doc=2768,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.284522 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although citation counts are often used to evaluate the research impact of academic publications, they are problematic for books that aim for educational or cultural impact. To fill this gap, this article assesses whether a number of simple metrics derived from Amazon.com reviews of academic books could provide evidence of their impact. Based on a set of 2,739 academic monographs from 2008 and a set of 1,305 best-selling books in 15 Amazon.com academic subject categories, the existence of significant but low or moderate correlations between citations and numbers of reviews, combined with other evidence, suggests that online book reviews tend to reflect the wider popularity of a book rather than its academic impact, although there are substantial disciplinary differences. Metrics based on online reviews are therefore recommended for the evaluation of books that aim at a wide audience inside or outside academia when it is important to capture the broader impacts of educational or cultural activities and when they cannot be manipulated in advance of the evaluation.

0.0048631616 = product of:
  0.014589485 = sum of:
    0.014589485 = product of:
      0.043768454 = sum of:
        0.043768454 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043768454 = score(doc=2571,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2571, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2571)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A common task in both Webmetrics and Web information retrieval is to identify a set of Web pages or sites that are similar in content. In this paper we assess the extent to which links, colinks and couplings can be used to identify similar Web sites. As an experiment, a random sample of 500 pairs of domains from the UK academic Web were taken and human assessments of site similarity, based upon content type, were compared against ratings for the three concepts. The results show that using a combination of all three gives the highest probability of identifying similar sites, but surprisingly this was only a marginal improvement over using links alone. Another unexpected result was that high values for either colink counts or couplings were associated with only a small increased likelihood of similarity. The principal advantage of using couplings and colinks was found to be greater coverage in terms of a much larger number of pairs of sites being connected by these measures, instead of increased probability of similarity. In information retrieval terminology, this is improved recall rather than improved precision.

0.0046085827 = product of:
  0.013825747 = sum of:
    0.013825747 = product of:
      0.04147724 = sum of:
        0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04147724 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

0.0046085827 = product of:
  0.013825747 = sum of:
    0.013825747 = product of:
      0.04147724 = sum of:
        0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04147724 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

0.0046085827 = product of:
  0.013825747 = sum of:
    0.013825747 = product of:
      0.04147724 = sum of:
        0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04147724 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

0.0040794373 = product of:
  0.012238312 = sum of:
    0.012238312 = product of:
      0.036714934 = sum of:
        0.036714934 = weight(_text_:online in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036714934 = score(doc=337,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We use a new data gathering method, "Web/URL citation," Web/URL and Google Scholar to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, and education) based upon a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 open access (OA) journals published in 2001. A Web/URL citation of an online journal article is a Web mention of its title, URL, or both. For each discipline, except psychology, we found significant correlations between Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI, here: ISI) citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations. Google Scholar citations correlated more highly with ISI citations than did Google Web/URL citations, indicating that the Web/URL method measures a broader type of citation phenomenon. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines, suggesting that Google Scholar is more comprehensive for social sciences and perhaps also when conference articles are valued and published online. We also found large disciplinary differences in the percentage overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citation sources. Finally, although we found many significant trends, there were also numerous exceptions, suggesting that replacing traditional citation sources with the Web or Google Scholar for research impact calculations would be problematic.

0.0040794373 = product of:
  0.012238312 = sum of:
    0.012238312 = product of:
      0.036714934 = sum of:
        0.036714934 = weight(_text_:online in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036714934 = score(doc=4920,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Citation indictors are increasingly used in some subject areas to support peer review in the evaluation of researchers and departments. Nevertheless, traditional journal-based citation indexes may be inadequate for the citation impact assessment of book-based disciplines. This article examines whether online citations from Google Books and Google Scholar can provide alternative sources of citation evidence. To investigate this, we compared the citation counts to 1,000 books submitted to the 2008 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) from Google Books and Google Scholar with Scopus citations across seven book-based disciplines (archaeology; law; politics and international studies; philosophy; sociology; history; and communication, cultural, and media studies). Google Books and Google Scholar citations to books were 1.4 and 3.2 times more common than were Scopus citations, and their medians were more than twice and three times as high as were Scopus median citations, respectively. This large number of citations is evidence that in book-oriented disciplines in the social sciences, arts, and humanities, online book citations may be sufficiently numerous to support peer review for research evaluation, at least in the United Kingdom.

0.0040794373 = product of:
  0.012238312 = sum of:
    0.012238312 = product of:
      0.036714934 = sum of:
        0.036714934 = weight(_text_:online in 4015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036714934 = score(doc=4015,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 4015, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4015)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Within science, citation counts are widely used to estimate research impact but publication delays mean that they are not useful for recent research. This gap can be filled by Mendeley reader counts, which are valuable early impact indicators for academic articles because they appear before citations and correlate strongly with them. Nevertheless, it is not known how Mendeley readership counts accumulate within the year of publication, and so it is unclear how soon they can be used. In response, this paper reports a longitudinal weekly study of the Mendeley readers of articles in 6 library and information science journals from 2016. The results suggest that Mendeley readers accrue from when articles are first available online and continue to steadily build. For journals with large publication delays, articles can already have substantial numbers of readers by their publication date. Thus, Mendeley reader counts may even be useful as early impact indicators for articles before they have been officially published in a journal issue. If field normalized indicators are needed, then these can be generated when journal issues are published using the online first date.

0.004052635 = product of:
  0.012157904 = sum of:
    0.012157904 = product of:
      0.03647371 = sum of:
        0.03647371 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03647371 = score(doc=4450,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 4450, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4450)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A layered approach for identifying communities in the Web is presented and explored by applying the flake exact community identification algorithm to the UK academic Web. Although community or topic identification is a common task in information retrieval, a new perspective is developed by: the application of alternative document models, shifting the focus from individual pages to aggregated collections based upon Web directories, domains and entire sites; the removal of internal site links; and the adaptation of a new fast algorithm to allow fully-automated community identification using all possible single starting points. The overall topology of the graphs in the three least-aggregated layers was first investigated and found to include a large number of isolated points but, surprisingly, with most of the remainder being in one huge connected component, exact proportions varying by layer. The community identification process then found that the number of communities far exceeded the number of topological components, indicating that community identification is a potentially useful technique, even with random starting points. Both the number and size of communities identified was dependent on the parameter of the algorithm, with very different results being obtained in each case. In conclusion, the UK academic Web is embedded with layers of non-trivial communities and, if it is not unique in this, then there is the promise of improved results for information retrieval algorithms that can exploit this additional structure, and the application of the technique directly to partially automate Web metrics tasks such as that of finding all pages related to a given subject hosted by a single country's universities.

0.004038437 = product of:
  0.01211531 = sum of:
    0.01211531 = product of:
      0.03634593 = sum of:
        0.03634593 = weight(_text_:online in 4239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03634593 = score(doc=4239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 4239, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4239)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Bibliometrics has changed out of all recognition since 1958; becoming established as a field, being taught widely in library and information science schools, and being at the core of a number of science evaluation research groups around the world. This was all made possible by the work of Eugene Garfield and his Science Citation Index. This article reviews the distance that bibliometrics has travelled since 1958 by comparing early bibliometrics with current practice, and by giving an overview of a range of recent developments, such as patent analysis, national research evaluation exercises, visualization techniques, new applications, online citation indexes, and the creation of digital libraries. Webometrics, a modern, fast-growing offshoot of bibliometrics, is reviewed in detail. Finally, future prospects are discussed with regard to both bibliometrics and webometrics.

0.0038404856 = product of:
  0.011521457 = sum of:
    0.011521457 = product of:
      0.03456437 = sum of:
        0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456437 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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(1/3)

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.

0.0038404856 = product of:
  0.011521457 = sum of:
    0.011521457 = product of:
      0.03456437 = sum of:
        0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456437 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

6. 4.2012 18:16:22

0.0038404856 = product of:
  0.011521457 = sum of:
    0.011521457 = product of:
      0.03456437 = sum of:
        0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456437 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22