Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Archambault, E."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.09
    0.08855899 = product of:
      0.17711797 = sum of:
        0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10374144 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06382575 = queryNorm
            0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
        0.073376544 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073376544 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06382575 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20%, 50%, and 80% of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  2. Lisée, C.; Larivière, V.; Archambault, E.: Conference proceedings as a source of scientific information : a bibliometric analysis (2008) 0.02
    0.0216128 = product of:
      0.0864512 = sum of:
        0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 2356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0864512 = score(doc=2356,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06382575 = queryNorm
            0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 2356, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2356)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    While several authors have argued that conference proceedings are an important source of scientific knowledge, the extent of their importance has not been measured in a systematic manner. This article examines the scientific impact and aging of conference proceedings compared to those of scientific literature in general. It shows that the relative importance of proceedings is diminishing over time and currently represents only 1.7% of references made in the natural sciences and engineering, and 2.5% in the social sciences and humanities. Although the scientific impact of proceedings is losing ground to other types of scientific literature in nearly all fields, it has grown from 8% of the references in engineering papers in the early 1980s to its current 10%. Proceedings play a particularly important role in computer sciences, where they account for close to 20% of the references. This article also shows that not unexpectedly, proceedings age faster than cited scientific literature in general. The evidence thus shows that proceedings have a relatively limited scientific impact, on average representing only about 2% of total citations, that their relative importance is shrinking, and that they become obsolete faster than the scientific literature in general.