Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.001492389 = product of:
  0.017908668 = sum of:
    0.017908668 = product of:
      0.053726003 = sum of:
        0.053726003 = weight(_text_:2000 in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053726003 = score(doc=1202,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14141516 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034896247 = queryNorm
            0.37991685 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

Bioinformatics is a fast-growing field based on the optimal use of "big data" gathered in genomic, proteomics, and functional genomics research. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive and in-depth bibliometric analysis of the field of bioinformatics by extracting citation data from PubMed Central full-text. Citation data for the period 2000 to 2011, comprising 20,869 papers with 546,245 citations, was used to evaluate the productivity and influence of this emerging field. Four measures were used to identify productivity; most productive authors, most productive countries, most productive organizations, and most popular subject terms. Research impact was analyzed based on the measures of most cited papers, most cited authors, emerging stars, and leading organizations. Results show the overall trends between the periods 2000 to 2003 and 2004 to 2007 were dissimilar, while trends between the periods 2004 to 2007 and 2008 to 2011 were similar. In addition, the field of bioinformatics has undergone a significant shift, co-evolving with other biomedical disciplines.

0.001400154 = product of:
  0.016801847 = sum of:
    0.016801847 = weight(_text_:internet in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016801847 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10302209 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034896247 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

This study comprises a suite of analyses of words in article titles in order to reveal the cognitive structure of Library and Information Science (LIS). The use of title words to elucidate the cognitive structure of LIS has been relatively neglected. The present study addresses this gap by performing (a) co-word analysis and hierarchical clustering, (b) multidimensional scaling, and (c) determination of trends in usage of terms. The study is based on 10,344 articles published between 1988 and 2007 in 16 LIS journals. Methodologically, novel aspects of this study are: (a) its large scale, (b) removal of non-specific title words based on the "word concentration" measure (c) identification of the most frequent terms that include both single words and phrases, and (d) presentation of the relative frequencies of terms using "heatmaps". Conceptually, our analysis reveals that LIS consists of three main branches: the traditionally recognized library-related and information-related branches, plus an equally distinct bibliometrics/scientometrics branch. The three branches focus on: libraries, information, and science, respectively. In addition, our study identifies substructures within each branch. We also tentatively identify "information seeking behavior" as a branch that is establishing itself separate from the three main branches. Furthermore, we find that cognitive concepts in LIS evolve continuously, with no stasis since 1992. The most rapid development occurred between 1998 and 2001, influenced by the increased focus on the Internet. The change in the cognitive landscape is found to be driven by the emergence of new information technologies, and the retirement of old ones.

0.001400154 = product of:
  0.016801847 = sum of:
    0.016801847 = weight(_text_:internet in 3426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016801847 = score(doc=3426,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10302209 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034896247 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 3426, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3426)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Theme

Internet

0.0013789883 = product of:
  0.016547859 = sum of:
    0.016547859 = product of:
      0.033095717 = sum of:
        0.033095717 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033095717 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12220071 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034896247 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

22. 1.2011 13:02:21

0.0011819899 = product of:
  0.014183879 = sum of:
    0.014183879 = product of:
      0.028367758 = sum of:
        0.028367758 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028367758 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12220071 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034896247 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

22. 8.2014 16:52:04

8.793987E-4 = product of:
  0.010552784 = sum of:
    0.010552784 = product of:
      0.03165835 = sum of:
        0.03165835 = weight(_text_:2000 in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03165835 = score(doc=4143,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14141516 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034896247 = queryNorm
            0.22386816 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

This work identifies changes in dominant topics in library and information science (LIS) over time, by analyzing the 3,121 doctoral dissertations completed between 1930 and 2009 at North American Library and Information Science programs. The authors utilize latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) to identify latent topics diachronically and to identify representative dissertations of those topics. The findings indicate that the main topics in LIS have changed substantially from those in the initial period (1930-1969) to the present (2000-2009). However, some themes occurred in multiple periods, representing core areas of the field: library history occurred in the first two periods; citation analysis in the second and third periods; and information-seeking behavior in the fourth and last period. Two topics occurred in three of the five periods: information retrieval and information use. One of the notable changes in the topics was the diminishing use of the word library (and related terms). This has implications for the provision of doctoral education in LIS. This work is compared to other earlier analyses and provides validation for the use of LDA in topic analysis of a discipline.