Browsing Research Institute in Information and Language Processing by Authors
Can museums find male or female audiences online with YouTube?Thelwall, Michael (Emerald Publishing Limited, 2018-08-31)Purpose: This article investigates if and why audience gender ratios vary between museum YouTube channels, including for museums of the same type. Design/methodology/approach: Gender ratios were examined for public comments on YouTube videos from 50 popular museums in English-speaking nations. Terms that were more frequently used by males or females in comments were also examined for gender differences. Findings: The ratio of female to male YouTube commenters varies almost a hundredfold between museums. Some of the difference could be explained by gendered interests in museum themes (e.g., military, art) but others were due to the topics chosen for online content and could address a gender minority audience. Practical implications: Museums can attract new audiences online with YouTube videos that target outside their expected demographics. Originality/value: This is the first analysis of YouTube audience gender for museums.
Which US and European Higher Education Institutions are visible in ResearchGate and what affects their RG Score?Lepori, Benedetto; Thelwall, Michael; Hoorani, Bareerah Hafeez (Elsevier, 2018-07-19)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.