-
Cronin, B.; Snyder, H.; Atkins, H.: Comparative citation rankings of authors in mongraphic and journal literature : a study of sociology (1997)
0.02
0.01974769 = product of:
0.03949538 = sum of:
0.03949538 = product of:
0.15798151 = sum of:
0.15798151 = weight(_text_:authors in 4709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15798151 = score(doc=4709,freq=8.0), product of:
0.22403783 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.049143884 = queryNorm
0.70515555 = fieldWeight in 4709, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4709)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Describes a study which examined the scholarly literature of sociology. Tens of thousands of references from monographs and leading academic journals were analyzed. The relative rankings of authors who were highly cited in the monographic literature did not change in the journal literature of the same period. However, there was only a small overlap between the most highly cited authors based on the journal sample and those based on the monograph sample. The lack of correlation suggests that there may be 2 distinct populations of highly cited authors
-
Larivière, V.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Cronin, B.: ¬A bibliometric chronicling of library and information science's first hundred years (2012)
0.01
0.012215717 = product of:
0.024431434 = sum of:
0.024431434 = product of:
0.097725734 = sum of:
0.097725734 = weight(_text_:authors in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.097725734 = score(doc=244,freq=6.0), product of:
0.22403783 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.049143884 = queryNorm
0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.
-
Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists (2006)
0.01
0.011284394 = product of:
0.022568788 = sum of:
0.022568788 = product of:
0.09027515 = sum of:
0.09027515 = weight(_text_:authors in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09027515 = score(doc=196,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22403783 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.049143884 = queryNorm
0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=196)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The authors apply a new bibliometric measure, the h-index (Hirsch, 2005), to the literature of information science. Faculty rankings based on raw citation counts are compared with those based on h-counts. There is a strong positive correlation between the two sets of rankings. It is shown how the h-index can be used to express the broad impact of a scholar's research output over time in more nuanced fashion than straight citation counts.
-
Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: Applying the author affiliation index to library and information science journals (2008)
0.01
0.011284394 = product of:
0.022568788 = sum of:
0.022568788 = product of:
0.09027515 = sum of:
0.09027515 = weight(_text_:authors in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09027515 = score(doc=2361,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22403783 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.049143884 = queryNorm
0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 2361, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2361)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The authors use a novel method - the Author Affiliation Index (AAI) - to determine whether faculty at the top-10 North American library and information science (LIS) programs have a disproportionate presence in the premier journals of the field. The study finds that LIS may be both too small and too interdisciplinary a domain for the AAI to provide reliable results.
-
Davenport, E.; Cronin, B.: Who dunnit? : Metatags and hyperauthorship (2001)
0.01
0.009873845 = product of:
0.01974769 = sum of:
0.01974769 = product of:
0.07899076 = sum of:
0.07899076 = weight(_text_:authors in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07899076 = score(doc=6031,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22403783 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.049143884 = queryNorm
0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 6031, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6031)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Multiple authorship is a topic of growing concern in a number of scientific domains. When, as is increasingly common, scholarly articles and clinical reports have scores or even hundreds of authors-what Cronin (in press) has termed "hyperauthorship" -the precise nature of each individual's contribution is often masked. A notation that describes collaborators' contributions and allows those contributions to be tracked in, and across, texts (and over time) offers a solution. Such a notation should be useful, easy to use, and acceptable to communities of scientists. Drawing on earlier work, we present a proposal for an XML-like "contribution" mark-up, and discuss the potential benefits and possible drawbacks
-
Sugimoto, C.R.; Cronin, B.: Biobibliometric profiling : an examination of multifaceted approaches to scholarship (2012)
0.01
0.009873845 = product of:
0.01974769 = sum of:
0.01974769 = product of:
0.07899076 = sum of:
0.07899076 = weight(_text_:authors in 4991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07899076 = score(doc=4991,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22403783 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.049143884 = queryNorm
0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 4991, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4991)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We conducted a fine-grained prosopography of six distinguished information scientists to explore commonalities and differences in their approaches to scholarly production at different stages of their careers. Specifically, we gathered data on authors' genre preferences, rates and modes of scholarly production, and coauthorship patterns. We also explored the role played by gender and place in determining mentoring and collaboration practices across time. Our biobibliometric profiles of the sextet reveal the different shapes a scholar's career can take. We consider the implications of our findings for new entrants into the academic marketplace.
-
Snyder, H.; Cronin, B.; Davenport, E.: What's the use of citation? : Citation analysis as a literature topic in selected disciplines of the social sciences (1995)
0.01
0.008463296 = product of:
0.016926592 = sum of:
0.016926592 = product of:
0.06770637 = sum of:
0.06770637 = weight(_text_:authors in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06770637 = score(doc=1825,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22403783 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.049143884 = queryNorm
0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a study to investigate the place and role of citation analysis in selected disciplines in the social sciences, including library and information science. 5 core library and information science periodicals: Journal of documentation; Library quarterly; Journal of the American Society for Information Science; College and research libraries; and the Journal of information science, were studed to determine the percentage of articles devoted to citation analysis and develop an indictive typology to categorize the major foci of research being conducted under the rubric of citation analysis. Similar analysis was conducted for periodicals in other social sciences disciplines. Demonstrates how the rubric can be used to dertermine how citatiion analysis is applied within library and information science and other disciplines. By isolating citation from bibliometrics in general, this work is differentiated from other, previous studies. Analysis of data from a 10 year sample of transdisciplinary social sciences literature suggests that 2 application areas predominate: the validity of citation as an evaluation tool; and impact or performance studies of authors, periodicals, and institutions
