Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Larivière, V."
  • × author_ss:"Sugimoto, C.R."
  1. Larivière, V.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Cronin, B.: ¬A bibliometric chronicling of library and information science's first hundred years (2012) 0.01 
    0.012952548 = product of:
  0.025905097 = sum of:
    0.025905097 = product of:
      0.10362039 = sum of:
        0.10362039 = weight(_text_:authors in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10362039 = score(doc=244,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 244, 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=244)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.
  2. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Tsou, A.: Team size matters : collaboration and scientific impact since 1900 (2015) 0.01 
    0.012690852 = product of:
  0.025381705 = sum of:
    0.025381705 = product of:
      0.10152682 = sum of:
        0.10152682 = weight(_text_:authors in 2035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10152682 = score(doc=2035,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = 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.
  3. Haustein, S.; Peters, I.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.; Larivière, V.: Tweeting biomedicine : an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature (2014) 0.01 
    0.010237687 = product of:
  0.020475375 = sum of:
    0.020475375 = product of:
      0.04095075 = sum of:
        0.04095075 = weight(_text_:i in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04095075 = score(doc=1229,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Authors