Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0047052535 = product of:
  0.018821014 = sum of:
    0.018821014 = product of:
      0.03764203 = sum of:
        0.03764203 = weight(_text_:science in 242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03764203 = score(doc=242,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 242, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=242)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Characteristics of the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology and 76 other journals listed in the InformationSystems category of the Journal Citation Reports-Science edition 2009 were analyzed. Besides reporting usual bibliographic indicators, we investigated the human cornerstone of any peer-reviewed journal: its editorial board. Demographic data about the 2,846 gatekeepers serving in information systems (IS) editorial boards were collected. We discuss various scientometric indicators supported by descriptive statistics. Our findings reflect the great variety of IS journals in terms of research output, author communities, editorial boards, and gatekeeper demographics (e.g., diversity in gender and location), seniority, authority, and degree of involvement in editorial boards. We believe that these results may help the general public and scholars (e.g., readers, authors, journal gatekeepers, policy makers) to revise and increase their knowledge of scholarly communication in the IS field. The EB_IS_2009 dataset supporting this scientometric study is released as online supplementary material to this article to foster further research on editorial boards.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.5, S.977-996

0.0039210445 = product of:
  0.015684178 = sum of:
    0.015684178 = product of:
      0.031368356 = sum of:
        0.031368356 = weight(_text_:science in 619) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031368356 = score(doc=619,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 619, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=619)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Peer review supports scientific conferences in selecting high-quality papers for publication. Referees are expected to evaluate submissions equitably according to objective criteria (e.g., originality of the contribution, soundness of the theory, validity of the experiments). We argue that the submission date of papers is a subjective factor playing a role in the way they are evaluated. Indeed, program committee (PC) chairs and referees process submission lists that are usually sorted by paperIDs. This order conveys chronological information, as papers are numbered sequentially upon reception. We show that order effects lead to unconscious favoring of early-submitted papers to the detriment of later-submitted papers. Our point is supported by a study of 42 peer-reviewed conferences in Computer Science showing a decrease in the number of bids placed on submissions with higher paperIDs. It is advised to counterbalance order effects during the bidding phase of peer review by promoting the submissions with fewer bids to potential referees. This manipulation intends to better share bids out among submissions in order to attract qualified referees for all submissions. This would secure reviews from confident referees, who are keen on voicing sharp opinions and recommendations (acceptance or rejection) about submissions. This work contributes to the integrity of peer review, which is mandatory to maintain public trust in science.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.2, S.405-415

0.0038418232 = product of:
  0.015367293 = sum of:
    0.015367293 = product of:
      0.030734586 = sum of:
        0.030734586 = weight(_text_:science in 1242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030734586 = score(doc=1242,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 1242, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1242)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The number of authors collaborating to write scientific articles has been increasing steadily, and with this collaboration, other factors have also changed, such as the length of articles and the number of citations. However, little is known about potential discrepancies in the use of tables and graphs between single and collaborating authors. In this article, we ask whether multiauthor articles contain more tables and graphs than single-author articles, and we studied 5,180 recent articles published in six science and social sciences journals. We found that pairs and multiple authors used significantly more tables and graphs than single authors. Such findings indicate that there is a greater emphasis on the role of tables and graphs in collaborative writing, and we discuss some of the possible causes and implications of these findings.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.812-820

0.0036221053 = product of:
  0.014488421 = sum of:
    0.014488421 = product of:
      0.028976843 = sum of:
        0.028976843 = weight(_text_:science in 1637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028976843 = score(doc=1637,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 1637, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1637)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.2, S.408-427

0.002716579 = product of:
  0.010866316 = sum of:
    0.010866316 = product of:
      0.021732632 = sum of:
        0.021732632 = weight(_text_:science in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021732632 = score(doc=996,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 996, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=996)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.10, S.2182-2186

0.0022638158 = product of:
  0.009055263 = sum of:
    0.009055263 = product of:
      0.018110527 = sum of:
        0.018110527 = weight(_text_:science in 2850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018110527 = score(doc=2850,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 2850, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2850)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.874-884