Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.014139215 = product of:
  0.02827843 = sum of:
    0.02827843 = product of:
      0.05655686 = sum of:
        0.05655686 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05655686 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17227371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04919534 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.011981441 = product of:
  0.023962881 = sum of:
    0.023962881 = product of:
      0.095851526 = sum of:
        0.095851526 = weight(_text_:authors in 2035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095851526 = score(doc=2035,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22427242 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04919534 = queryNorm
            0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 2035, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2035)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article provides the first historical analysis of the relationship between collaboration and scientific impact using three indicators of collaboration (number of authors, number of addresses, and number of countries) derived from articles published between 1900 and 2011. The results demonstrate that an increase in the number of authors leads to an increase in impact, from the beginning of the last century onward, and that this is not due simply to self-citations. A similar trend is also observed for the number of addresses and number of countries represented in the byline of an article. However, the constant inflation of collaboration since 1900 has resulted in diminishing citation returns: Larger and more diverse (in terms of institutional and country affiliation) teams are necessary to realize higher impact. The article concludes with a discussion of the potential causes of the impact gain in citations of collaborative papers.

0.009984534 = product of:
  0.019969068 = sum of:
    0.019969068 = product of:
      0.079876274 = sum of:
        0.079876274 = weight(_text_:authors in 5107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079876274 = score(doc=5107,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22427242 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04919534 = queryNorm
            0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 5107, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5107)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Journal articles constitute the core documents for the diffusion of knowledge in the natural sciences. It has been argued that the same is not true for the social sciences and humanities where knowledge is more often disseminated in monographs that are not indexed in the journal-based databases used for bibliometric analysis. Previous studies have made only partial assessments of the role played by both serials and other types of literature. The importance of journal literature in the various scientific fields has therefore not been systematically characterized. The authors address this issue by providing a systematic measurement of the role played by journal literature in the building of knowledge in both the natural sciences and engineering and the social sciences and humanities. Using citation data from the CD-ROM versions of the Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) databases from 1981 to 2000 (Thomson ISI, Philadelphia, PA), the authors quantify the share of citations to both serials and other types of literature. Variations in time and between fields are also analyzed. The results show that journal literature is increasingly important in the natural and social sciences, but that its role in the humanities is stagnant and has even tended to diminish slightly in the 1990s. Journal literature accounts for less than 50% of the citations in several disciplines of the social sciences and humanities; hence, special care should be used when using bibliometric indicators that rely only on journal literature.

0.0070601315 = product of:
  0.014120263 = sum of:
    0.014120263 = product of:
      0.056481052 = sum of:
        0.056481052 = weight(_text_:authors in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056481052 = score(doc=284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22427242 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04919534 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 284, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=284)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article analyzes the effects of publication language on the international scientific visibility of Russia using the Web of Science (WoS). Like other developing and transition countries, it is subject to a growing pressure to "internationalize" its scientific activities, which primarily means a shift to English as a language of scientific communication. But to what extent does the transition to English improve the impact of research? The case of Russia is of interest in this respect as the existence of many combinations of national journals and languages of publications (namely, Russian and English, including translated journals) provide a kind of natural I experiment to test the effects of language and publisher's country on the international visibility of research through citations as well as on the referencing practices of authors. Our analysis points to the conclusion that the production of original English-language papers in foreign journals is a more efficient strategy of internationalization than the mere translation of domestic journals. If the objective of a country is to maximize the international visibility of its scientific work, then the efforts should go into the promotion of publication in reputed English-language journals to profit from the added effect provided by the Matthew effect of these venues.