Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Gazni, A."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Gazni, A.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Didegah, F.: Mapping world scientific collaboration : authors, institutions, and countries (2012) 0.02 
    0.021592634 = product of:
  0.043185268 = sum of:
    0.043185268 = product of:
      0.086370535 = sum of:
        0.086370535 = weight(_text_:core in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.086370535 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.3348038 = fieldWeight in 1141, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1141)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    International collaboration is being heralded as the hallmark of contemporary scientific production. Yet little quantitative evidence has portrayed the landscape and trends of such collaboration. To this end, 14,000,000 documents indexed in Thomson Reuters's Web of Science (WoS) were studied to provide a state-of-the-art description of scientific collaborations across the world. The results indicate that the number of authors in the largest research teams have not significantly grown during the past decade; however, the number of smaller research teams has seen significant increases in growth. In terms of composition, the largest teams have become more diverse than the latter teams and tend more toward interinstitutional and international collaboration. Investigating the size of teams showed large variation between fields. Mapping scientific cooperation at the country level reveals that Western countries situated at the core of the map are extensively cooperating with each other. High-impact institutions are significantly more collaborative than others. This work should inform policy makers, administrators, and those interested in the progression of scientific collaboration.
  2. Gazni, A.; Ghaseminik, Z.: Author practices in citing other authors, institutions, and journals (2016) 0.02 
    0.01799386 = product of:
  0.03598772 = sum of:
    0.03598772 = product of:
      0.07197544 = sum of:
        0.07197544 = weight(_text_:core in 3129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07197544 = score(doc=3129,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.27900314 = fieldWeight in 3129, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3129)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study explores the extent to which authors with different impact and productivity levels cite journals, institutions, and other authors through an analysis of the scientific papers of 37,717 authors during 1990-2013. The results demonstrate that the core-scatter distribution of cited authors, institutions, and journals varies for authors in each impact and productivity class. All authors in the science network receive the majority of their credit from high-impact authors; however, this effect decreases as authors' impact levels decrease. Similarly, the proportion of citations that lower-impact authors make to each other increases as authors' impact levels decrease. High-impact authors, who have the highest degree of membership in the science network, publish fewer papers in comparison to highly productive authors. However, authors with the highest impact make both more references per paper and also more citations to papers in the science network. This suggests that high-impact authors produce the most relevant work in the science network. Comparing practices by productivity level, authors receive the majority of their credit from highly productive authors and authors cite highly productive authors more frequently than less productive authors.

Authors