-
Cronin, B.: Vernacular and vehicular language (2009)
0.01
0.014569688 = product of:
0.043709062 = sum of:
0.043709062 = product of:
0.087418124 = sum of:
0.087418124 = weight(_text_:22 in 7192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.087418124 = score(doc=7192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7192, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7192)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 11:44:11
-
Davenport, E.; Cronin, B.: Knowledge management : Semantic drift or conceptual shift? (2000)
0.01
0.010406921 = product of:
0.03122076 = sum of:
0.03122076 = product of:
0.06244152 = sum of:
0.06244152 = weight(_text_:22 in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06244152 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 31. 7.2001 20:22:57
-
Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists (2006)
0.01
0.009406643 = product of:
0.028219929 = sum of:
0.028219929 = product of:
0.084659785 = sum of:
0.084659785 = weight(_text_:authors in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084659785 = score(doc=196,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
0.009406643 = product of:
0.028219929 = sum of:
0.028219929 = product of:
0.084659785 = sum of:
0.084659785 = weight(_text_:authors in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084659785 = score(doc=2361,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
-
Cronin, B.: Hyperauthorship : a postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? (2001)
0.01
0.008230813 = product of:
0.024692439 = sum of:
0.024692439 = product of:
0.074077316 = sum of:
0.074077316 = weight(_text_:authors in 5909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.074077316 = score(doc=5909,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 5909, 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=5909)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Classical assumptions about the nature and ethical entailments of authorship (the standard model) are being challenged by developments in scientific collaboration and multiple authorship. In the biomedical research community, multiple authorship has increased to such an extent that the trustworthiness of the scientific communication system has been called into question. Documented abuses, such as honorific authorship, have serious implications in terms of the acknowledgment of authority, allocation of credit, and assigning of accountability. Within the biomedical world it has been proposed that authors be replaced by lists of contributors (the radical model), whose specific inputs to a given study would be recorded unambiguously. The wider implications of the 'hyperauthorship' phenomenon for scholarly publication are considered
-
Davenport, E.; Cronin, B.: Who dunnit? : Metatags and hyperauthorship (2001)
0.01
0.008230813 = product of:
0.024692439 = sum of:
0.024692439 = product of:
0.074077316 = sum of:
0.074077316 = weight(_text_:authors in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.074077316 = score(doc=6031,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
-
Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: ¬The shifting balance of intellectual trade in information studies (2008)
0.01
0.008230813 = product of:
0.024692439 = sum of:
0.024692439 = product of:
0.074077316 = sum of:
0.074077316 = weight(_text_:authors in 1377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.074077316 = score(doc=1377,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 1377, 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=1377)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The authors describe a large-scale, longitudinal citation analysis of intellectual trading between information studies and cognate disciplines. The results of their investigation reveal the extent to which information studies draws on and, in turn, contributes to the ideational substrates of other academic domains. Their data show that the field has become a more successful exporter of ideas as well as less introverted than was previously the case. In the last decade, information studies has begun to contribute significantly to the literatures of such disciplines as computer science and engineering on the one hand and business and management on the other, while also drawing more heavily on those same literatures.
