Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011916089 = product of:
  0.05958044 = sum of:
    0.05958044 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05958044 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18148361 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051825367 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.011778293 = product of:
  0.058891464 = sum of:
    0.058891464 = weight(_text_:40 in 1228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058891464 = score(doc=1228,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19765252 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.813818 = idf(docFreq=2651, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051825367 = queryNorm
        0.29795453 = fieldWeight in 1228, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.813818 = idf(docFreq=2651, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1228)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Previous research indicates that during the past 20 years, the highest-quality work has been published in an increasingly diverse and larger group of journals. In this article, we examine whether this diversification has also affected the handful of elite journals that are traditionally considered to be the best. We examine citation patterns during the past 40 years of seven long-standing traditionally elite journals and six journals that have been increasing in importance during the past 20 years. To be among the top 5% or 1% cited papers, papers now need about twice as many citations as they did 40 years ago. Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, elite journals have been publishing a decreasing proportion of these top-cited papers. This also applies to the two journals that are typically considered as the top venues and often used as bibliometric indicators of "excellence": Science and Nature. On the other hand, several new and established journals are publishing an increasing proportion of the most-cited papers. These changes bring new challenges and opportunities for all parties. Journals can enact policies to increase or maintain their relative position in the journal hierarchy. Researchers now have the option to publish in more diverse venues knowing that their work can still reach the same audiences. Finally, evaluators and administrators need to know that although there will always be a certain prestige associated with publishing in "elite" journals, journal hierarchies are in constant flux.

0.009422634 = product of:
  0.04711317 = sum of:
    0.04711317 = weight(_text_:40 in 3805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04711317 = score(doc=3805,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19765252 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.813818 = idf(docFreq=2651, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051825367 = queryNorm
        0.23836362 = fieldWeight in 3805, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.813818 = idf(docFreq=2651, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3805)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

27. 8.2017 17:40:40

0.00832851 = product of:
  0.04164255 = sum of:
    0.04164255 = weight(_text_:40 in 2933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04164255 = score(doc=2933,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19765252 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.813818 = idf(docFreq=2651, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051825367 = queryNorm
        0.21068566 = fieldWeight in 2933, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.813818 = idf(docFreq=2651, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2933)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

For more than 40 years, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now part of Thomson Reuters) produced the only available bibliographic databases from which bibliometricians could compile large-scale bibliometric indicators. ISI's citation indexes, now regrouped under the Web of Science (WoS), were the major sources of bibliometric data until 2004, when Scopus was launched by the publisher Reed Elsevier. For those who perform bibliometric analyses and comparisons of countries or institutions, the existence of these two major databases raises the important question of the comparability and stability of statistics obtained from different data sources. This paper uses macrolevel bibliometric indicators to compare results obtained from the WoS and Scopus. It shows that the correlations between the measures obtained with both databases for the number of papers and the number of citations received by countries, as well as for their ranks, are extremely high. There is also a very high correlation when countries' papers are broken down by field. The paper thus provides evidence that indicators of scientific production and citations at the country level are stable and largely independent of the database.