Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03277177 = product of:
  0.13108708 = sum of:
    0.13108708 = weight(_text_:having in 3383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13108708 = score(doc=3383,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 3383, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3383)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The impact of published academic research in the sciences and social sciences, when measured, is commonly estimated by counting citations from journal articles. The Web has now introduced new potential sources of quantitative data online that could be used to measure aspects of research impact. In this article we assess the extent to which citations from online syllabuses could be a valuable source of evidence about the educational utility of research. An analysis of online syllabus citations to 70,700 articles published in 2003 in the journals of 12 subjects indicates that online syllabus citations were sufficiently numerous to be a useful impact indictor in some social sciences, including political science and information and library science, but not in others, nor in any sciences. This result was consistent with current social science research having, in general, more educational value than current science research. Moreover, articles frequently cited in online syllabuses were not necessarily highly cited by other articles. Hence it seems that online syllabus citations provide a valuable additional source of evidence about the impact of journals, scholars, and research articles in some social sciences.

0.03277177 = product of:
  0.13108708 = sum of:
    0.13108708 = weight(_text_:having in 1678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13108708 = score(doc=1678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 1678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1678)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Online videos provide a novel, and often interactive, platform for the popularization of science. One successful collection is hosted on the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) website. This study uses a range of bibliometric (citation) and webometric (usage and bookmarking) indicators to examine TED videos in order to provide insights into the type and scope of their impact. The results suggest that TED Talks impact primarily the public sphere, with about three-quarters of a billion total views, rather than the academic realm. Differences were found among broad disciplinary areas, with art and design videos having generally lower levels of impact but science and technology videos generating otherwise average impact for TED. Many of the metrics were only loosely related, but there was a general consensus about the most popular videos as measured through views or comments on YouTube and the TED site. Moreover, most videos were found in at least one online syllabus and videos in online syllabi tended to be more viewed, discussed, and blogged. Less-liked videos generated more discussion, although this may be because they are more controversial. Science and technology videos presented by academics were more liked than those by nonacademics, showing that academics are not disadvantaged in this new media environment.

0.03277177 = product of:
  0.13108708 = sum of:
    0.13108708 = weight(_text_:having in 2331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13108708 = score(doc=2331,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 2331, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2331)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Some curricula vitae (web CVs) of academics on the web, including homepages and publication lists, link to open-access (OA) articles, resources, abstracts in publishers' websites, or academic discussions, helping to disseminate research. To assess how common such practices are and whether they vary by discipline, gender, and country, the authors conducted a large-scale e-mail survey of astronomy and astrophysics, public health, environmental engineering, and philosophy across 15 European countries and analyzed hyperlinks from web CVs of academics. About 60% of the 2,154 survey responses reported having a web CV or something similar, and there were differences between disciplines, genders, and countries. A follow-up outlink analysis of 2,700 web CVs found that a third had at least one outlink to an OA target, typically a public eprint archive or an individual self-archived file. This proportion was considerably higher in astronomy (48%) and philosophy (37%) than in environmental engineering (29%) and public health (21%). There were also differences in linking to publishers' websites, resources, and discussions. Perhaps most important, however, the amount of linking to OA publications seems to be much lower than allowed by publishers and journals, suggesting that many opportunities for disseminating full-text research online are being missed, especially in disciplines without established repositories. Moreover, few academics seem to be exploiting their CVs to link to discussions, resources, or article abstracts, which seems to be another missed opportunity for publicizing research.

0.03277177 = product of:
  0.13108708 = sum of:
    0.13108708 = weight(_text_:having in 952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13108708 = score(doc=952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=952)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Research collaboration is promoted by governments and research funders, but if the relative prevalence and merits of collaboration vary internationally then different national and disciplinary strategies may be needed to promote it. This study compares the team size and field normalized citation impact of research across all 27 Scopus broad fields in the 10 countries with the most journal articles indexed in Scopus 2008-2012. The results show that team size varies substantially by discipline and country, with Japan (4.2) having two-thirds more authors per article than the United Kingdom (2.5). Solo authorship is rare in China (4%) but common in the United Kingdom (27%). While increasing team size associates with higher citation impact in almost all countries and fields, this association is much weaker in China than elsewhere. There are also field differences in the association between citation impact and collaboration. For example, larger team sizes in the Business, Management & Accounting category do not seem to associate with greater research impact, and for China and India, solo authorship associates with higher citation impact in this field. Overall, there are substantial international and field differences in the extent to which researchers collaborate and the extent to which collaboration associates with higher citation impact.

0.012488026 = product of:
  0.049952105 = sum of:
    0.049952105 = weight(_text_:und in 202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049952105 = score(doc=202,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1471148 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.33954507 = fieldWeight in 202, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=202)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.401-406