Map of nonprofit organization websites in Israel

Abstract

In this study, we consider the structure and linking strategy of Hebrew websites of several nonprofit organizations. Because nonprofit organizations differ from commercial, educational, or governmental sectors, it is important to understand the ways they utilize the web. To the best of our knowledge, the linking structure of nonprofit organizations has not been previously studied. We surveyed websites of 54 nonprofit organizations in Israel; most of these sites have at least 100 volunteers. We compared their orientation and contents and we built their linking map. We divided the organizations into four main groups: economic aid and citizen rights organizations, health aid organizations, organizations supporting families and individuals with special needs, and organizations for women and children. We found that the number of links inside the special needs group is much higher than in the other groups. We tried to explain this behavior by considering the data obtained from the site‐linking graph. The value of our results is in defining and testing a method to investigate a group of nonprofit organizations, using a case study of Israeli organizations.

Measuring visibility of disciplines on Chinese academic web

“…The statistics on European Higher Education Institutions (HEI) shows that HEIs attracts three times links with the same discipline over those from HEIs with a completely different discipline [15]. Similar pattern has also been found in the non-profit organisation network [16]. By contrast, the multidisciplinary institutions are more visible and attract more potential collaborators in term of bibliometric collaboration relationships [17].…”

Guest editorial: social media in scholarly communication

“…Most of these examine the extent to which scientific articles are visible on various platforms (coverage), the average attention they receive (mean event rate), and the degree to which the metrics correlate with citations and other metrics. In terms of signal, Mendeley (the social bookmarking platform) has been shown to be the dominant source, with levels of coverage as high as 50-70% in some disciplines (e.g., biomedical research and the social sciences) and nearly ubiquitous coverage for some journals (e.g., Nature, Science, JASIST, and PLOS journals) (Haustein et al, 2014b;Bar-Ilan, 2012; in press a; Mohammadi and Thelwall, 2014;Priem et al, 2012). Other social reference managers such as CiteULike and BibSonomy capture less activity (Haustein and Siebenlist, 2011;; for example, 31% of PLOS articles were bookmarked on CiteULike compared to 80% on Mendeley (Priem et al, 2012).…”