Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Case, D.O."
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Case, D.O.; O'Connor, L.G.: What's the use? : measuring the frequency of studies of information outcomes (2016) 0.04 
    0.039208744 = product of:
  0.15683497 = sum of:
    0.059237804 = weight(_text_:case in 2838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059237804 = score(doc=2838,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 2838, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2838)
    0.09759717 = weight(_text_:studies in 2838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09759717 = score(doc=2838,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.6172141 = fieldWeight in 2838, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2838)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Several prominent scholars suggest that investigations of human information behavior or "information needs, seeking, and uses" rarely measure how received information is applied or its effects on the recipient, that is, its outcomes. This article explores this assertion via systematic analysis of studies published in journals between 1950 and 2012. Five time periods and four journals were sampled, including 1,391 journal articles, 915 of which were empirical studies. Based on these samples, the percentage of studies of information outcomes climbed from zero in the 1950s and 1960s, to 8% in recent research reports. The barriers to studying information outcomes and possible future research on this topic are explored.
  2. Case, D.O.; Miller, J.B.: Do bibliometricians cite differently from other scholars? (2011) 0.02 
    0.019973401 = product of:
  0.079893604 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 4346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=4346,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 4346, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4346)
    0.03758089 = product of:
      0.07516178 = sum of:
        0.07516178 = weight(_text_:area in 4346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07516178 = score(doc=4346,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.38494104 = fieldWeight in 4346, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4346)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Why authors cite particular documents has been the subject of both speculation and empirical investigation for decades. This article provides a short history of attempts to understand citation motivations and reports a replication of earlier surveys measuring reasons for citations. Comparisons are made among various types of scholars. The present study identified six highly cited articles in the topic area of bibliometrics and surveyed all of the locatable authors who cited those works (n=112). It was thought that bibliometricians, given that this is their area of expertise, might have a heightened level of awareness of their own citation practices, and hence a different pattern of responses. Several reasons indicated by the 56% of the sample who identified themselves as bibliometricians differed in statistically significant ways from nonbibliometricians, and also from earlier samples of scholars in Communication and Psychology. By far the most common reason for citing a document is that it represents a genre. A factor analysis shows that 20 motivations, clustered in seven factors, can represent the most common motivations for citation. The implications of these findings are discussed in the light of recent debates about the role of social factors in citation. Alternative methods for investigating citation behavior are discussed.

Authors