Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.026653863 = product of:
  0.053307727 = sum of:
    0.053307727 = product of:
      0.21323091 = sum of:
        0.21323091 = weight(_text_:author's in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21323091 = score(doc=3593,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.33845404 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050364036 = queryNorm
            0.63001436 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Discounted Cumulated Impact (DCI) index has recently been proposed for research evaluation. In the present work an earlier dataset by Cronin and Meho (2007) is reanalyzed, with the aim of exemplifying the salient features of the DCI index. We apply the index on, and compare our results to, the outcomes of the Cronin-Meho (2007) study. Both authors and their top publications are used as units of analysis, which suggests that, by adjusting the parameters of evaluation according to the needs of research evaluation, the DCI index delivers data on an author's (or publication's) lifetime impact or current impact at the time of evaluation on an author's (or publication's) capability of inviting citations from highly cited later publications as an indication of impact, and on the relative impact across a set of authors (or publications) over their lifetime or currently.

0.013186063 = product of:
  0.026372125 = sum of:
    0.026372125 = product of:
      0.05274425 = sum of:
        0.05274425 = weight(_text_:l in 1753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05274425 = score(doc=1753,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20017955 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050364036 = queryNorm
            0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 1753, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1753)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010988386 = product of:
  0.021976773 = sum of:
    0.021976773 = product of:
      0.043953545 = sum of:
        0.043953545 = weight(_text_:l in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043953545 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20017955 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050364036 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose This paper analyses the research in Library and Information Science (LIS) and reports on (1) the status of LIS research in 2015 and (2) on the evolution of LIS research longitudinally from 1965 to 2015. Design/methodology/approach The study employs a quantitative intellectual content analysis of articles published in 30+ scholarly LIS journals, following the design by Tuomaala et al. (2014). In the content analysis, we classify articles along eight dimensions covering topical content and methodology. Findings The topical findings indicate that the earlier strong LIS emphasis on L&I services has declined notably, while scientific and professional communication has become the most popular topic. Information storage and retrieval has given up its earlier strong position towards the end of the years analyzed. Individuals are increasingly the units of observation. End-user's and developer's viewpoints have strengthened at the cost of intermediaries' viewpoint. LIS research is methodologically increasingly scattered since survey, scientometric methods, experiment, case studies and qualitative studies have all gained in popularity. Consequently, LIS may have become more versatile in the analysis of its research objects during the years analyzed. Originality/value Among quantitative intellectual content analyses of LIS research, the study is unique in its scope: length of analysis period (50 years), width (8 dimensions covering topical content and methodology) and depth (the annual batch of 30+ scholarly journals).

0.008529539 = product of:
  0.017059078 = sum of:
    0.017059078 = product of:
      0.034118157 = sum of:
        0.034118157 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034118157 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17636627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050364036 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06