-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: ¬The operationalization of "fields" as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics : the cases of "library and information science" and "science & technology studies" (2016)
0.03
0.027458396 = product of:
0.117678836 = sum of:
0.014206541 = product of:
0.028413082 = sum of:
0.028413082 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028413082 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09615103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.029015815 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029015815 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09716552 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.028413082 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028413082 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09615103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.028413082 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028413082 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09615103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0052914224 = score(doc=2779,freq=8.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.010648641 = product of:
0.03194592 = sum of:
0.03194592 = weight(_text_:l in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03194592 = score(doc=2779,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.37262368 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0016902501 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.23333333 = coord(7/30)
- Abstract
- Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web of Science subject categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "information science & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of "science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" be replaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New research questions can then be envisaged.
- Field
- Bibliothekswesen
Informationswissenschaft
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.707-714
-
Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016)
0.02
0.023396436 = product of:
0.10027044 = sum of:
0.0118387835 = product of:
0.023677567 = sum of:
0.023677567 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023677567 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09615103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.024179846 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024179846 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09716552 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.023677567 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023677567 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09615103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.023677567 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023677567 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09615103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.006614278 = weight(_text_:in in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006614278 = score(doc=3231,freq=18.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.008873867 = product of:
0.0266216 = sum of:
0.0266216 = weight(_text_:l in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0266216 = score(doc=3231,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.31051973 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0014085418 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.23333333 = coord(7/30)
- Abstract
- As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.
- Field
- Bibliothekswesen
Informationswissenschaft
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3095-3100
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.00
0.0034251497 = product of:
0.025688622 = sum of:
0.0045825066 = weight(_text_:in in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0045825066 = score(doc=4681,freq=6.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
0.010648641 = product of:
0.03194592 = sum of:
0.03194592 = weight(_text_:l in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03194592 = score(doc=4681,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.37262368 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0016902501 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
0.008767224 = product of:
0.017534448 = sum of:
0.017534448 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017534448 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
- Abstract
- A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.
- Date
- 8. 1.2019 18:22:45
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.2, S.198-201
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor : normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science (2011)
0.00
0.0032270278 = product of:
0.024202708 = sum of:
0.006614278 = weight(_text_:in in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006614278 = score(doc=4186,freq=18.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
0.008873867 = product of:
0.0266216 = sum of:
0.0266216 = weight(_text_:l in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0266216 = score(doc=4186,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.31051973 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0014085418 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
0.0073060202 = product of:
0.0146120405 = sum of:
0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0146120405 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
- Abstract
- The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:51:07
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.217-229
-
Leydesdorff, L.: Accounting for the uncertainty in the evaluation of percentile ranks (2012)
0.00
0.0023731373 = product of:
0.023731373 = sum of:
0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0052914224 = score(doc=447,freq=2.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 447, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=447)
0.015059452 = product of:
0.045178354 = sum of:
0.045178354 = weight(_text_:l in 447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045178354 = score(doc=447,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.52696943 = fieldWeight in 447, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=447)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0033805002 = weight(_text_:s in 447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0033805002 = score(doc=447,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 447, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=447)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.11, S.2349-2350
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.; Barth, A.; Leydesdorff, L.: Detecting the historical roots of research fields by reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS) (2014)
0.00
0.0020568697 = product of:
0.020568697 = sum of:
0.0061733257 = weight(_text_:in in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0061733257 = score(doc=1238,freq=8.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 1238, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1238)
0.012423414 = product of:
0.03727024 = sum of:
0.03727024 = weight(_text_:l in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03727024 = score(doc=1238,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.4347276 = fieldWeight in 1238, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1238)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0019719584 = score(doc=1238,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 1238, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1238)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- We introduce the quantitative method named "Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy" (RPYS). With this method one can determine the historical roots of research fields and quantify their impact on current research. RPYS is based on the analysis of the frequency with which references are cited in the publications of a specific research field in terms of the publication years of these cited references. The origins show up in the form of more or less pronounced peaks mostly caused by individual publications that are cited particularly frequently. In this study, we use research on graphene and on solar cells to illustrate how RPYS functions, and what results it can deliver.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.751-764
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Shin, J.C.: How to evaluate universities in terms of their relative citation impacts : fractional counting of citations and the normalization of differences among disciplines (2011)
0.00
0.0020016627 = product of:
0.020016627 = sum of:
0.009259989 = weight(_text_:in in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009259989 = score(doc=4466,freq=18.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.31560543 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
0.008784681 = product of:
0.026354041 = sum of:
0.026354041 = weight(_text_:l in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026354041 = score(doc=4466,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0019719584 = score(doc=4466,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- Fractional counting of citations can improve on ranking of multidisciplinary research units (such as universities) by normalizing the differences among fields of science in terms of differences in citation behavior. Furthermore, normalization in terms of citing papers abolishes the unsolved questions in scientometrics about the delineation of fields of science in terms of journals and normalization when comparing among different (sets of) journals. Using publication and citation data of seven Korean research universities, we demonstrate the advantages and the differences in the rankings, explain the possible statistics, and suggest ways to visualize the differences in (citing) audiences in terms of a network.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.6, S.1146-1155
-
Bornmann, L.; Leydesdorff, L.: Which cities produce more excellent papers than can be expected? : a new mapping approach, using Google Maps, based on statistical significance testing (2011)
0.00
0.0017630312 = product of:
0.017630313 = sum of:
0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0052914224 = score(doc=4767,freq=8.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 4767, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4767)
0.010648641 = product of:
0.03194592 = sum of:
0.03194592 = weight(_text_:l in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03194592 = score(doc=4767,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.37262368 = fieldWeight in 4767, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4767)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0016902501 = score(doc=4767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4767, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4767)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- The methods presented in this paper allow for a statistical analysis revealing centers of excellence around the world using programs that are freely available. Based on Web of Science data (a fee-based database), field-specific excellence can be identified in cities where highly cited papers were published more frequently than can be expected. Compared to the mapping approaches published hitherto, our approach is more analytically oriented by allowing the assessment of an observed number of excellent papers for a city against the expected number. Top performers in output are cities in which authors are located who publish a statistically significant higher number of highly cited papers than can be expected for these cities. As sample data for physics, chemistry, and psychology show, these cities do not necessarily have a high output of highly cited papers.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.10, S.1954-1962
-
Zhou, P.; Su, X.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬A comparative study on communication structures of Chinese journals in the social sciences (2010)
0.00
0.001715711 = product of:
0.01715711 = sum of:
0.007937134 = weight(_text_:in in 3580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007937134 = score(doc=3580,freq=18.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.27051896 = fieldWeight in 3580, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3580)
0.007529726 = product of:
0.022589177 = sum of:
0.022589177 = weight(_text_:l in 3580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022589177 = score(doc=3580,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 3580, 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=3580)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 3580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0016902501 = score(doc=3580,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 3580, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3580)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- We argue that the communication structures in the Chinese social sciences have not yet been sufficiently reformed. Citation patterns among Chinese domestic journals in three subject areas - political science and Marxism, library and information science, and economics - are compared with their counterparts internationally. Like their colleagues in the natural and life sciences, Chinese scholars in the social sciences provide fewer references to journal publications than their international counterparts; like their international colleagues, social scientists provide fewer references than natural sciences. The resulting citation networks, therefore, are sparse. Nevertheless, the citation structures clearly suggest that the Chinese social sciences are far less specialized in terms of disciplinary delineations than their international counterparts. Marxism studies are more established than political science in China. In terms of the impact of the Chinese political system on academic fields, disciplines closely related to the political system are less specialized than those weakly related. In the discussion section, we explore reasons that may cause the current stagnation and provide policy recommendations.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1360-1376
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Goldstone, R.L.: Interdisciplinarity at the journal and specialty level : the changing knowledge bases of the journal cognitive science (2014)
0.00
0.0016703177 = product of:
0.016703177 = sum of:
0.007483202 = weight(_text_:in in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007483202 = score(doc=1187,freq=16.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
0.007529726 = product of:
0.022589177 = sum of:
0.022589177 = weight(_text_:l in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022589177 = score(doc=1187,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 1187, 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=1187)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0016902501 = score(doc=1187,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- Using the referencing patterns in articles in Cognitive Science over three decades, we analyze the knowledge base of this literature in terms of its changing disciplinary composition. Three periods are distinguished: (A) construction of the interdisciplinary space in the 1980s, (B) development of an interdisciplinary orientation in the 1990s, and (C) reintegration into "cognitive psychology" in the 2000s. The fluidity and fuzziness of the interdisciplinary delineations in the different visualizations can be reduced and clarified using factor analysis. We also explore newly available routines ("CorText") to analyze this development in terms of "tubes" using an alluvial map and compare the results with an animation (using "Visone"). The historical specificity of this development can be compared with the development of "artificial intelligence" into an integrated specialty during this same period. Interdisciplinarity should be defined differently at the level of journals and of specialties.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.1, S.164-177
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors : an alternative research design with policy implications (2011)
0.00
0.0016115655 = product of:
0.016115654 = sum of:
0.005833246 = weight(_text_:in in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005833246 = score(doc=4919,freq=14.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
0.008873867 = product of:
0.0266216 = sum of:
0.0266216 = weight(_text_:l in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0266216 = score(doc=4919,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.31051973 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0014085418 = score(doc=4919,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- In bibliometrics, the association of "impact" with central-tendency statistics is mistaken. Impacts add up, and citation curves therefore should be integrated instead of averaged. For example, the journals MIS Quarterly and Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology differ by a factor of 2 in terms of their respective impact factors (IF), but the journal with the lower IF has the higher impact. Using percentile ranks (e.g., top-1%, top-10%, etc.), an Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) can be based on integration of the citation curves, but after normalization of the citation curves to the same scale. The results across document sets can be compared as percentages of the total impact of a reference set. Total number of citations, however, should not be used instead because the shape of the citation curves is then not appreciated. I3 can be applied to any document set and any citation window. The results of the integration (summation) are fully decomposable in terms of journals or institutional units such as nations, universities, and so on because percentile ranks are determined at the paper level. In this study, we first compare I3 with IFs for the journals in two Institute for Scientific Information subject categories ("Information Science & Library Science" and "Multidisciplinary Sciences"). The library and information science set is additionally decomposed in terms of nations. Policy implications of this possible paradigm shift in citation impact analysis are specified.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2133-2146
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Radicchi, F.; Bornmann, L.; Castellano, C.; Nooy, W. de: Field-normalized impact factors (IFs) : a comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs (2013)
0.00
0.0016080491 = product of:
0.016080491 = sum of:
0.003741601 = weight(_text_:in in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003741601 = score(doc=1108,freq=4.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
0.010648641 = product of:
0.03194592 = sum of:
0.03194592 = weight(_text_:l in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03194592 = score(doc=1108,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.37262368 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0016902501 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.11, S.2299-2309
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Park, H.W.; Wagner, C.: International coauthorship relations in the Social Sciences Citation Index : is internationalization leading the Network? (2014)
0.00
0.0015932769 = product of:
0.015932769 = sum of:
0.008249454 = weight(_text_:in in 1505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008249454 = score(doc=1505,freq=28.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.2811637 = fieldWeight in 1505, product of:
5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
28.0 = termFreq=28.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1505)
0.006274772 = product of:
0.018824315 = sum of:
0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 1505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018824315 = score(doc=1505,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 1505, 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=1505)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 1505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0014085418 = score(doc=1505,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1505, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1505)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- International coauthorship relations have increasingly shaped another dynamic in the natural and life sciences during recent decades. However, much less is known about such internationalization in the social sciences. In this study, we analyze international and domestic coauthorship relations of all citable items in the DVD version of the Social Sciences Citation Index 2011 (SSCI). Network statistics indicate 4 groups of nations: (a) an Asian-Pacific one to which all Anglo-Saxon nations (including the United Kingdom and Ireland) are attributed, (b) a continental European one including also the Latin-American countries, (c) the Scandinavian nations, and (d) a community of African nations. Within the EU-28, 11 of the EU-15 states have dominant positions. In many respects, the network parameters are not so different from the Science Citation Index. In addition to these descriptive statistics, we address the question of the relative weights of the international versus domestic networks. An information-theoretical test is proposed at the level of organizational addresses within each nation; the results are mixed, but the international dimension is more important than the national one in the aggregated sets (as in the Science Citation Index). In some countries (e.g., France), however, the national distribution is leading more than the international one. Decomposition of the United States in terms of states shows a similarly mixed result; more U.S. states are domestically oriented in the SSCI and more internationally in the SCI. The international networks have grown during the last decades in addition to the national ones but not by replacing them.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.10, S.2111-2126
-
Ye, F.Y.; Yu, S.S.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations at the country level and its dynamic evolution under the pressures of globalization (2013)
0.00
0.0015700618 = product of:
0.015700618 = sum of:
0.0064806426 = weight(_text_:in in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0064806426 = score(doc=1110,freq=12.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 1110, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1110)
0.007529726 = product of:
0.022589177 = sum of:
0.022589177 = weight(_text_:l in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022589177 = score(doc=1110,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 1110, 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=1110)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0016902501 = score(doc=1110,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1110, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1110)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- Using data from the Web of Science (WoS), we analyze the mutual information among university, industry, and government addresses (U-I-G) at the country level for a number of countries. The dynamic evolution of the Triple Helix can thus be compared among developed and developing nations in terms of cross-sectional coauthorship relations. The results show that the Triple Helix interactions among the three subsystems U-I-G become less intensive over time, but unequally for different countries. We suggest that globalization erodes local Triple Helix relations and thus can be expected to have increased differentiation in national systems since the mid-1990s. This effect of globalization is more pronounced in developed countries than in developing ones. In the dynamic analysis, we focus on a more detailed comparison between China and the United States. Specifically, the Chinese Academy of the (Social) Sciences is changing increasingly from a public research institute to an academic one, and this has a measurable effect on China's position in the globalization.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.11, S.2317-2325
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Zhou, P.; Bornmann, L.: How can journal impact factors be normalized across fields of science? : An assessment in terms of percentile ranks and fractional counts (2013)
0.00
0.0015682945 = product of:
0.015682945 = sum of:
0.0054005357 = weight(_text_:in in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0054005357 = score(doc=532,freq=12.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
0.008873867 = product of:
0.0266216 = sum of:
0.0266216 = weight(_text_:l in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0266216 = score(doc=532,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.31051973 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0014085418 = score(doc=532,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- Using the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index 2010 (N = 3,705 journals), we study the (combined) effects of (a) fractional counting on the impact factor (IF) and (b) transformation of the skewed citation distributions into a distribution of 100 percentiles and six percentile rank classes (top-1%, top-5%, etc.). Do these approaches lead to field-normalized impact measures for journals? In addition to the 2-year IF (IF2), we consider the 5-year IF (IF5), the respective numerators of these IFs, and the number of Total Cites, counted both as integers and fractionally. These various indicators are tested against the hypothesis that the classification of journals into 11 broad fields by PatentBoard/NSF (National Science Foundation) provides statistically significant between-field effects. Using fractional counting the between-field variance is reduced by 91.7% in the case of IF5, and by 79.2% in the case of IF2. However, the differences in citation counts are not significantly affected by fractional counting. These results accord with previous studies, but the longer citation window of a fractionally counted IF5 can lead to significant improvement in the normalization across fields.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.1, S.96-107
-
Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.; Leydesdorff, L.: BRICS countries and scientific excellence : a bibliometric analysis of most frequently cited papers (2015)
0.00
0.0015682945 = product of:
0.015682945 = sum of:
0.0054005357 = weight(_text_:in in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0054005357 = score(doc=2047,freq=12.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
0.008873867 = product of:
0.0266216 = sum of:
0.0266216 = weight(_text_:l in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0266216 = score(doc=2047,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.31051973 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0014085418 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are notable for their increasing participation in science and technology. The governments of these countries have been boosting their investments in research and development to become part of the group of nations doing research at a world-class level. This study investigates the development of the BRICS countries in the domain of top-cited papers (top 10% and 1% most frequently cited papers) between 1990 and 2010. To assess the extent to which these countries have become important players at the top level, we compare the BRICS countries with the top-performing countries worldwide. As the analyses of the (annual) growth rates show, with the exception of Russia, the BRICS countries have increased their output in terms of most frequently cited papers at a higher rate than the top-cited countries worldwide. By way of additional analysis, we generate coauthorship networks among authors of highly cited papers for 4 time points to view changes in BRICS participation (1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010). Here, the results show that all BRICS countries succeeded in becoming part of this network, whereby the Chinese collaboration activities focus on the US.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.7, S.1507-1513
-
Zhou, Q.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The normalization of occurrence and co-occurrence matrices in bibliometrics using Cosine similarities and Ochiai coefficients (2016)
0.00
0.0015211523 = product of:
0.015211523 = sum of:
0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0052914224 = score(doc=3161,freq=8.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
0.007529726 = product of:
0.022589177 = sum of:
0.022589177 = weight(_text_:l in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022589177 = score(doc=3161,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 3161, 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=3161)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.002390375 = weight(_text_:s in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.002390375 = score(doc=3161,freq=4.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- We prove that Ochiai similarity of the co-occurrence matrix is equal to cosine similarity in the underlying occurrence matrix. Neither the cosine nor the Pearson correlation should be used for the normalization of co-occurrence matrices because the similarity is then normalized twice, and therefore overestimated; the Ochiai coefficient can be used instead. Results are shown using a small matrix (5 cases, 4 variables) for didactic reasons, and also Ahlgren et?al.'s (2003) co-occurrence matrix of 24 authors in library and information sciences. The overestimation is shown numerically and will be illustrated using multidimensional scaling and cluster dendograms. If the occurrence matrix is not available (such as in internet research or author cocitation analysis) using Ochiai for the normalization is preferable to using the cosine.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.11, S.2805-2814
-
Shelton, R.D.; Leydesdorff, L.: Publish or patent : bibliometric evidence for empirical trade-offs in national funding strategies (2012)
0.00
0.0014995674 = product of:
0.014995674 = sum of:
0.0073123598 = weight(_text_:in in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0073123598 = score(doc=70,freq=22.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.24922498 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
0.006274772 = product of:
0.018824315 = sum of:
0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018824315 = score(doc=70,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 70, 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=70)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0014085418 = score(doc=70,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- Multivariate linear regression models suggest a trade-off in allocations of national research and development (R&D). Government funding and spending in the higher education sector encourage publications as a long-term research benefit. Conversely, other components such as industrial funding and spending in the business sector encourage patenting. Our results help explain why the United States trails the European Union in publications: The focus in the United States is on industrial funding-some 70% of its total R&D investment. Likewise, our results also help explain why the European Union trails the United States in patenting, since its focus on government funding is less effective than industrial funding in predicting triadic patenting. Government funding contributes negatively to patenting in a multiple regression, and this relationship is significant in the case of triadic patenting. We provide new forecasts about the relationships of the United States, the European Union, and China for publishing; these results suggest much later dates for changes than previous forecasts because Chinese growth has been slowing down since 2003. Models for individual countries might be more successful than regression models whose parameters are averaged over a set of countries because nations can be expected to differ historically in terms of the institutional arrangements and funding schemes.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.3, S.498-511
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Moya-Anegón, F. de; Nooy, W. de: Aggregated journal-journal citation relations in scopus and web of science matched and compared in terms of networks, maps, and interactive overlays (2016)
0.00
0.0014995674 = product of:
0.014995674 = sum of:
0.0073123598 = weight(_text_:in in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0073123598 = score(doc=3090,freq=22.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.24922498 = fieldWeight in 3090, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3090)
0.006274772 = product of:
0.018824315 = sum of:
0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018824315 = score(doc=3090,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 3090, 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=3090)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0014085418 = score(doc=3090,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3090, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3090)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- We compare the network of aggregated journal-journal citation relations provided by the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2012 of the Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) with similar data based on Scopus 2012. First, global and overlay maps were developed for the 2 sets separately. Using fuzzy-string matching and ISSN numbers, we were able to match 10,524 journal names between the 2 sets: 96.4% of the 10,936 journals contained in JCR, or 51.2% of the 20,554 journals covered by Scopus. Network analysis was pursued on the set of journals shared between the 2 databases and the 2 sets of unique journals. Citations among the shared journals are more comprehensively covered in JCR than in Scopus, so the network in JCR is denser and more connected than in Scopus. The ranking of shared journals in terms of indegree (i.e., numbers of citing journals) or total citations is similar in both databases overall (Spearman rank correlation ??>?0.97), but some individual journals rank very differently. Journals that are unique to Scopus seem to be less important-they are citing shared journals rather than being cited by them-but the humanities are covered better in Scopus than in JCR.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.9, S.2194-2211
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Wagner, C.S.; Porto-Gomez, I.; Comins, J.A.; Phillips, F.: Synergy in the knowledge base of U.S. innovation systems at national, state, and regional levels : the contributions of high-tech manufacturing and knowledge-intensive services (2019)
0.00
0.0014655376 = product of:
0.014655376 = sum of:
0.006972062 = weight(_text_:in in 5390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006972062 = score(doc=5390,freq=20.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.2376267 = fieldWeight in 5390, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5390)
0.006274772 = product of:
0.018824315 = sum of:
0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 5390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018824315 = score(doc=5390,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 5390, 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=5390)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 5390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0014085418 = score(doc=5390,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 5390, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5390)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- Using information theory, we measure innovation systemness as synergy among size-classes, ZIP Codes, and technological classes (NACE-codes) for 8.5 million American companies. The synergy at the national level is decomposed at the level of states, Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSA), and Combined Statistical Areas (CSA). We zoom in to the state of California and in more detail to Silicon Valley. Our results do not support the assumption of a national system of innovations in the U.S.A. Innovation systems appear to operate at the level of the states; the CBSA are too small, so that systemness spills across their borders. Decomposition of the sample in terms of high-tech manufacturing (HTM), medium-high-tech manufacturing (MHTM), knowledge-intensive services (KIS), and high-tech services (HTKIS) does not change this pattern, but refines it. The East Coast-New Jersey, Boston, and New York-and California are the major players, with Texas a third one in the case of HTKIS. Chicago and industrial centers in the Midwest also contribute synergy. Within California, Los Angeles contributes synergy in the sectors of manufacturing, the San Francisco area in KIS. KIS in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area-a CSA composed of seven CBSA-spill over to other regions and even globally.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.10, S.1108-1123
