A generic lexical URL segmentation framework for counting links,colinks or URLs

Large sets of Web page links, colinks, or URLs sometimes need to be counted or otherwise summarized by researchers to analyze Web growth or publishing. Computing professionals also use them to evaluate Web sites or optimize search engines. Despite the apparently simple nature of these types of data, many different summarization methods have been used in the past. Some of these methods may not have been optimal. This article proposes a generic lexical framework to unify and extend existing methods through abstract notions of link lists and URL lists. The approach is built upon decomposing URLs by lexical segments, such as domain names, and systematically characterizing the counting options available. In addition, counting method choice recommendations are inferred from a very general set of theoretical research assumptions. The article also offers practical advice for analyzing raw data from search engines.     

The Web impact of open access social science research

For a long time, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) journal citations have been widely used for research performance monitoring of the sciences. For the social sciences, however, the Social Sciences Citation Index® (SSCI®) can sometimes be insufficient. Broader types of publications (e.g., books and non-ISI journals) and informal scholarly indicators may also be needed. This article investigates whether the Web can help to fill this gap. The authors analyzed 1530 citations from Google™ to 492 research articles from 44 open access social science journals. The articles were published in 2001 in the fields of education, psychology, sociology, and economics. About 19% of the Web citations represented formal impact equivalent to journal citations, and 11% were more informal indicators of impact. The average was about 3 formal and 2 informal impact citations per article. Although the proportions of formal and informal online impact were similar in sociology, psychology, and education, economics showed six times more formal impact than informal impact. The results suggest that new types of citation information and informal scholarly indictors could be extracted from the Web for the social sciences. Since these form only a small proportion of the Web citations, however, Web citation counts should first be processed to remove irrelevant citations. This can be a time-consuming process unless automated.     

Is research with qualitative data more prevalent and impactful now? Interviews,case studies,focus groups and ethnographies

With qualitative research apparently threatened by big data, researchers, editors, educators, librarians, and publishers need to understand the mix of research methods used in their field to guide decision making. In response, this study assesses the prevalence and citation impact of academic research between 1996 and 2019 that reports one of four common methods to gather qualitative data: interviews, focus groups, case studies, and ethnography. With minor exceptions, the prevalence of qualitative data has increased, often substantially, since 1996. In addition, all 27 broad fields (as classified by Scopus) now publish some qualitative research, with interviewing being by far the most common approach. The citation impact of interview and focus group research mostly decreased over time, whereas of case study citation impact increased, and ethnography was above average in its two core subject areas. This suggests that methods teachers, researchers, editors, librarians, and publishers should be increasingly open to the value of qualitative data.     

A comparison of feature selection methods for an evolving RSS feed corpus

Previous researchers have attempted to detect significant topics in news stories and blogs through the use of word frequency-based methods applied to RSS feeds. In this paper, the three statistical feature selection methods: χ², Mutual Information (MI) and Information Gain (I) are proposed as alternative approaches for ranking term significance in an evolving RSS feed corpus. The extent to which the three methods agree with each other on determining the degree of the significance of a term on a certain date is investigated as well as the assumption that larger values tend to indicate more significant terms. An experimental evaluation was carried out with 39 different levels of data reduction to evaluate the three methods for differing degrees of significance. The three methods showed a significant degree of disagreement for a number of terms assigned an extremely large value. Hence, the assumption that the larger a value, the higher the degree of the significance of a term should be treated cautiously. Moreover, MI and I show significant disagreement. This suggests that MI is different in the way it ranks significant terms, as MI does not take the absence of a term into account, although I does. I, however, has a higher degree of term reduction than MI and χ². This can result in loosing some significant terms. In summary, χ² seems to be the best method to determine term significance for RSS feeds, as χ² identifies both types of significant behavior. The χ² method, however, is far from perfect as an extremely high value can be assigned to relatively insignificant terms.     

Gender differences in research areas,methods and topics: Can people and thing orientations explain the results?

Although the gender gap in academia has narrowed, females are underrepresented within some fields in the USA. Prior research suggests that the imbalances between science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields may be partly due to greater male interest in things and greater female interest in people, or to off-putting masculine cultures in some disciplines. To seek more detailed insights across all subjects, this article compares practising US male and female researchers between and within 285 narrow Scopus fields inside 26 broad fields from their first-authored articles published in 2017. The comparison is based on publishing fields and the words used in article titles, abstracts, and keywords. The results cannot be fully explained by the people/thing dimensions. Exceptions include greater female interest in veterinary science and cell biology and greater male interest in abstraction, patients, and power/control fields, such as politics and law. These may be due to other factors, such as the ability of a career to provide status or social impact or the availability of alternative careers. As a possible side effect of the partial people/thing relationship, females are more likely to use exploratory and qualitative methods and males are more likely to use quantitative methods. The results suggest that the necessary steps of eliminating explicit and implicit gender bias in academia are insufficient and might be complemented by measures to make fields more attractive to minority genders.     

Does Mendeley provide evidence of the educational value of journal articles?

Research articles seem to have direct value for students in some subject areas, even though scholars may be their target audience. If this can be proven to be true, then subject areas with this type of educational impact could justify claims for enhanced funding. To seek evidence of disciplinary differences in the direct educational uptake of journal articles, but ignoring books, conference papers, and other scholarly outputs, this paper assesses the total number and proportions of student readers of academic articles in Mendeley across 12 different subjects. The results suggest that whilst few students read mathematics research articles, in other areas, the number of student readers is broadly proportional to the number of research readers. Although the differences in the average numbers of undergraduate readers of articles varies by up to 50 times between subjects, this could be explained by the differing levels of uptake of Mendeley rather than the differing educational value of disciplinary research. Overall, then, the results do not support the claim that journal articles in some areas have substantially more educational value than average for academia, compared with their research value.     

Which US and European Higher Education Institutions are visible in ResearchGate and what affects their RG score?

While ResearchGate has become the most popular academic social networking site in terms of regular users, not all institutions have joined and the scores it assigns to academics and institutions are controversial. This paper assesses the presence in ResearchGate of higher education institutions in Europe and the US in 2017, and the extent to which institutional ResearchGate Scores reflect institutional academic impact. Most of the 2258 European and 4355 US higher educational institutions included in the sample had an institutional ResearchGate profile, with near universal coverage for PhD-awarding institutions found in the Web of Science (WoS). For non-PhD awarding institutions that did not publish, size (number of staff members) was most associated with presence in ResearchGate. For PhD-awarding institutions in WoS, presence in RG was strongly related to the number of WoS publications. In conclusion, a) institutional RG scores reflect research volume more than visibility and b) this indicator is highly correlated to the number of WoS publications. Hence, the value of RG Scores for institutional comparisons is limited.     

Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries

There are known gender imbalances in participation in scientific fields, from female dominance of nursing to male dominance of mathematics. It is not clear whether there is also a citation imbalance, with some claiming that male-authored research tends to be more cited. No previous study has assessed gender differences in the readers of academic research on a large scale, however. In response, this article assesses whether there are gender differences in the average citations and/or Mendeley readers of academic publications. Field normalised logged Scopus citations and Mendeley readers from mid-2018 for articles published in 2014 were investigated for articles with first authors from India, Spain, Turkey, the UK and the USA in up to 251 fields with at least 50 male and female authors. Although female-authored research is less cited in Turkey (?4.0%) and India (?3.6%), it is marginally more cited in Spain (0.4%), the UK (0.4%), and the USA (0.2%). Female-authored research has fewer Mendeley readers in India (?1.1%) but more in Spain (1.4%), Turkey (1.1%), the UK (2.7%) and the USA (3.0%). Thus, whilst there may be little practical gender difference in citation impact in countries with mature science systems, the higher female readership impact suggests a wider audience for female-authored research. The results also show that the conclusions from a gender analysis depend on the field normalisation method. A theoretically informed decision must therefore be made about which normalisation to use. The results also suggest that arithmetic mean-based field normalisation is favourable to males.     

An international comparison of journal publishing and citing behaviours

The relationship between researchers’ publishing and citing behaviours has received little examination despite its potential importance in scholarly communication, particularly at an international level. To remedy this we studied documents and their references indexed in Thomson Reuters's Web of Science (WoS) in the period 2000–2009 to compare journal publishing behaviours against journal citing behaviours across the world. The results reveal that most publications in, and citations to, all five quality based strata of journals examined come from scientifically and economically advanced countries. Nevertheless, in proportion to their total number of citations given to WoS journals, it seems that less developed countries cite high-quality journals at the same rate as developed countries and so the poorer publishing of less developed countries does not seem to be due to a lack of access to top journals. Moreover, examining the publishing and citing trends of countries revealed a decreasing rate of high-income and Scientifically Advanced Countries (SACs) publications in, and citations to, all quality ranges of journals in comparison to the increasing rate of publications and citations of other groups. Finally, research cooperation between developed and less developed countries seems to positively influence the publishing behaviour of the latter as their publications co-authored with developed countries were published more often in top journals.