Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010589904 = product of:
  0.021179808 = sum of:
    0.021179808 = product of:
      0.042359617 = sum of:
        0.042359617 = weight(_text_:22 in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042359617 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 654, 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=654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2013 16:21:09

0.010469419 = product of:
  0.020938838 = sum of:
    0.020938838 = product of:
      0.08375535 = sum of:
        0.08375535 = weight(_text_:authors in 4962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08375535 = score(doc=4962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 4962, 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=4962)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports the findings of a bibliometric study of the measurable effects of experience and prestige on researchers' citing behavior. All single authors from two econometrics journals over a 10-year time period form the basis of the analysis of how experience and prestige affect the number of references in their publications. Preliminary results from linear regression models suggest that two author types can be characterized using this analysis. Review experience seems to be the decisive factor in the data. The article discusses the implications of the findings and offers suggestions for future research within this new and promising area.

0.010237687 = product of:
  0.020475375 = sum of:
    0.020475375 = product of:
      0.04095075 = sum of:
        0.04095075 = weight(_text_:i in 5587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04095075 = score(doc=5587,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 5587, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5587)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.008973788 = product of:
  0.017947575 = sum of:
    0.017947575 = product of:
      0.0717903 = sum of:
        0.0717903 = weight(_text_:authors in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0717903 = score(doc=4361,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 4361, 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=4361)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Flattery citations of editors, potential referees, and so on have been claimed to be a common strategy among academic authors. From a sociology of science perspective as well as from a citation analytical perspective, it is both an interesting claim and a consequential one. The article presents a citation analysis of the editorial board members entering the American Economic Review from 1984 to 2004 using a citation window of 11 years. To test the flattery citation hypothesis further, we have conducted a study applying the difference-in-differences estimator. We analyze the number of times the editors and editorial board members of the American Economic Review were cited in articles published in the journal itself as well as in a pool of documents comprising articles from the Journal of Political Economy and the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The results of the analyses do not support the existence of a flattery citation effect.

0.008973788 = product of:
  0.017947575 = sum of:
    0.017947575 = product of:
      0.0717903 = sum of:
        0.0717903 = weight(_text_:authors in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0717903 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3601, 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=3601)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Citation frequencies are commonly interpreted as measures of quality or impact. Yet, the true nature of citations and their proper interpretation have been the center of a long, but still unresolved discussion in Bibliometrics. A comparison of 67,578 pairs of studies on the same healthcare topic, with the same publication age (1-15 years) reveals that when one of the studies is being selected for citation, it has on average received about three times as many citations as the other study. However, the average citation-gap between selected or deselected studies narrows slightly over time, which fits poorly with the name-dropping interpretation and better with the quality and impact-interpretation. The results demonstrate that authors in the field of Healthcare tend to cite highly cited documents when they have a choice. This is more likely caused by differences related to quality than differences related to status of the publications cited.