CASCADES, ISLANDS AND STREAMSINDIANA UNIVERSITY BLOOMINGTONUNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTONUNIVERSITY OF QUEBEC AT MONTREAL

PRESENTED BY: DR KAYVAN KOUSHA (WOLVERHAMPTON)

PROJECT TEAMIndiana University Bloomington

• Cassidy Sugimoto (head)• Ying Ding• Staša Milojević

University of Wolverhampton• Mike Thelwall• Kayvan Kousha (presenting)

University of Quebec at Montreal• Vincent Larivière

PROJECT IDEATo correct the science bias in maps of science that rely upon journal citations

http://mapofscience.com/nih.html

OUR PROPOSAL1. Integrate several datasets representing a broad range of

scholarly activities (not just journal publishing)2. Use method triangulation to explore the lifecycle of

topics within and across a range of scholarly activities3. Develop transparent tools and techniques to enable

future predictive analyses

EXPLORE TOPIC EMERGENCE DIFFERENCESOccurs consistently in one type of activity, then cascades in a linear fashion to other areasOREmerges in one area then flows into other areas (streams)OREmerges in different places and remains in separate islands

RESEARCH QUESTIONSWhat is the nature of topic development in relation to core scholarly activities?How does the type of activity in which a topic appears impact the lifecycle and duration of that topic?

DATASETSProQuest Dissertation and Theses databaseNational Science Foundation grant databaseSocial Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada grant databaseWeb of Science (Century of Science database)Internet discussionsBlogsTwitterMendeley

TOPICSCognitive ScienceDigital HumanitiesHistory of ScienceSocial Network Analysis

We will analyse these four broad topic areas

METHODSWord analysis• Words used as proxies for topics to investigate topic

flows over timeTopic modelling• Identifying topics by statistical analysis of word co-

occurrencesBurst detection• Identifying sub-topic emergence by detecting significant

increases in word frequencies

TEDTALKS: ANALYSIS OF IMPACT

CASSIDY SUGIMOTO & MIKE THELWALL

EXAMPLE OF FINDINGS:-

Sugimoto, C.R. & Thelwall, M. (in press). Scholars on soap boxes: Science communication and dissemination via TED videos. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.

MOTIVATION New popular genrePublic dissemination of scienceEducational videosInfotainment

RESEARCH QUESTIONSIn which communication forms do TEDTalks have the greatest impact?Which disciplinary types of TEDTalks have the greatest impact?Do different communication forms have similar types of impact?

Metric Minimum Mean Maximum Total Valid

TED web site views 44,441 517,437 9,946,996 620,406,446 1,199

YouTube views 462 99,184 3,991,983 111,681,275 1,126 Blog citations (Google blog search estimates) 0 9,073 441,000 10,905,376 1,202

YouTube Likes 2 900 26,591 1,013,231 1,126

YouTube Favorite count 3 767 38,139 863,458 1,126

YouTube comments (count hint) 0 368 21,703 414,311 1,126

TED web site comments 8 187 5,921 224,629 1,199

YouTube Dislikes 0 69 1,456 78,053 1,126

Online mentions related to academic syllabi 0 2 50 2,070 1,202 Online mentions in PDF and Word documents 0 0 49 592 1,202

Google Scholar citations 0 0 75 505 1,202

Google Books citations 0 0 18 434 1,202

Online mentions in PowerPoint presentations 0 0 238 392 1,202

Mendeley readers 0 0 30 231 1,202

Web of Knowledge citations 0 0 5 47 1,202

YouTube Like proportion 0.260 0.900 1.000 - 1,126

Metric

Art & Designrank sum (194)

Science & Technology rank sum (405)

Others rank sum (440)

Significance of rank sum differences

TED web site views 468.33 526.49 532.22 0.036YouTube views 419.4 499.07 495.76 0.192

Blog citations 467.42 524.5 537.9 0.022

YouTube comments 338.94 513.31 517.77 0*

TED web site comments 374.81 521.61 578.36 0*

Online mentions related to academic syllabi 278.77 355.09 350.86 0.001*

Online mentions in PDF and Word documents 299.8 343.28 351.84 0.007

Google Scholar citations 327.26 354.01 329.78 0.009

Google Books citations 313.54 359.53 331.09 0.005

Online mentions in PowerPoint presentations 341.73 335.94 339.31 0.796

Mendeley readers 330.96 343.31 337.64 0.458

Web of Knowledge citations 332.61 342.05 338.01 0.337

YouTube Like proportion 428.13 544.53 448.13 0*

Spearman'srho WoK

GoogleScholar

Mend-eley

Google Books

PDF and doc Syllabi

Power-Point Blogs

YouTubeviews

YouTubecomments

YouTubeFavourites

YouTubeLike prop.

Ted site views

TED sitecomments

WoK 1 .264 .103 .186 .157 .174 .110 .133 .099 .062 .123 .076 .112 .089

Google Scholar .264 1 .198 .408 .272 .270 .089 .191 .202 .145 .229 .132 .239 .194

Mendeley .103 .198 1 .231 .215 .205 .178 .160 .133 .081 .166 .102 .176 .139

Google Books .186 .408 .231 1 .315 .312 .175 .276 .234 .150 .273 .087 .252 .197

PDF and doc .157 .272 .215 .315 1 .382 .165 .230 .245 .196 .285 .167 .276 .241

Syllabi .174 .270 .205 .312 .382 1 .160 .437 .353 .322 .425 .162 .440 .405

PowerPoint .110 .089 .178 .175 .165 .160 1 .095 .100 0.057 .127 0.035 .124 .082

Blogs .133 .191 .160 .276 .230 .437 .095 1 .496 .427 .554 .255 .610 .498

YouTube Views .099 .202 .133 .234 .245 .353 .100 .496 1 .681 .902 .368 .724 .540

YouTubecomments .062 .145 .081 .150 .196 .322 0.057 .427 .681 1 .651 .064 .560 .728

YouTubeFavourites .123 .229 .166 .273 .285 .425 .127 .554 .902 .651 1 .464 .773 .579

YouTube Likeprop. .076 .132 .102 .087 .167 .162 0.035 .255 .368 .064 .464 1 .369 .169

Ted site views .112 .239 .176 .252 .276 .440 .124 .610 .724 .560 .773 .369 1 .683

TED sitecomments .089 .194 .139 .197 .241 .405 .082 .498 .540 .728 .579 .169 .683 1

SOME FINDINGSThere was a general consensus about the most popular videos as measured through views or comments on YouTube and the TED site. 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.Science and technology videos presented by academics were more liked than those by non‐academics

->academics are not disadvantaged in TED

NEXT STEPIntegrating web, citation and dissertation data into one huge analysis