Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Kozak, M."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Tartanus, M.; Wnuk, A.; Kozak, M.; Hartley, J.: Graphs and prestige in agricultural journals (2013) 0.04 
    0.03901288 = sum of:
  0.021171015 = product of:
    0.08468406 = sum of:
      0.08468406 = weight(_text_:authors in 1051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08468406 = score(doc=1051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24018547 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052685954 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 1051, 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=1051)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017841864 = product of:
    0.03568373 = sum of:
      0.03568373 = weight(_text_:m in 1051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03568373 = score(doc=1051,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052685954 = queryNorm
          0.27217406 = fieldWeight in 1051, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1051)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this article, we report on the status of graphs in 21 scientific agricultural journals indexed in Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge. We analyze the authors' use of graphs in this context in relation to the quality of these journals as measured by their 2-year impact factors. We note a substantial variability in the use of graphs in this context: For one journal, 100% of the papers include graphs, whereas for others only about 50% of them include graphs. We also show that higher impact agricultural journals publish more papers with graphs and that there are more graphs in these papers than in those in journals with lower impact factors (r = +0.40).
  2. Kozak, M.; Iefremova, O.; Szkola, J.; Sas, D.: Do researchers provide public or institutional E-mail accounts as correspondence E-mails in scientific articles? (2015) 0.04 
    0.035203844 = sum of:
  0.026192341 = product of:
    0.104769364 = sum of:
      0.104769364 = weight(_text_:authors in 2226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.104769364 = score(doc=2226,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.24018547 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052685954 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 2226, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2226)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.009011503 = product of:
    0.018023007 = sum of:
      0.018023007 = weight(_text_:m in 2226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018023007 = score(doc=2226,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052685954 = queryNorm
          0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 2226, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2226)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Whether one should use a public e-mail account (e.g., Gmail, Yahoo!) or an institutional one (e.g., @wsiz.rzeszow.pl, @medicine.ox.ac.uk) as an address for correspondence is an important aspect of scientific communication. Some authors consider that public e-mail services are unprofessional and insecure, whereas others say that, in a dynamically changing working environment, public e-mail addresses allow readers to contact authors long after they have changed their workplace. To shed light on this issue, we analyzed how often authors of scientific papers provided e-mail addresses that were either public or institution based. We selected from the Web of Science database 1,000 frequently cited and 1,000 infrequently cited articles (all of the latter were noncited articles) published in 2000, 2005, and 2010, and from these we analyzed 26,937 e-mail addresses. The results showed that approximately three fourths of these addresses were institutional, but there was an increasing trend toward using public e-mail addresses over the period studied. No significant differences were found between frequently and infrequently cited papers in this respect. Further research is now needed to access the motivations and perceptions of scholars when it comes to their use of either public or institutional e-mail accounts.

Authors