Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019819647 = product of:
  0.039639294 = sum of:
    0.039639294 = product of:
      0.15855718 = sum of:
        0.15855718 = weight(_text_:authors in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15855718 = score(doc=3231,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.22259426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04882723 = queryNorm
            0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.013873751 = product of:
  0.027747503 = sum of:
    0.027747503 = product of:
      0.11099001 = sum of:
        0.11099001 = weight(_text_:authors in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11099001 = score(doc=5130,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22259426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04882723 = queryNorm
            0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Citations support the communication of specialist knowledge by allowing authors and readers to make specific selections in several contexts at the same time. In the interactions between the social network of authors and the network of their reflexive communications, a sub textual code of communication with a distributed character has emerged. Citation analysis reflects on citation practices. Reference lists are aggregated in scientometric analysis using one of the available contexts to reduce the complexity: geometrical representations of dynamic operations are reflected in corresponding theories of citation. The specific contexts represented in the modern citation can be deconstructed from the perspective of the cultural evolution of scientific communication

0.009923123 = product of:
  0.019846246 = sum of:
    0.019846246 = product of:
      0.03969249 = sum of:
        0.03969249 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03969249 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17098464 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04882723 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, 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=4460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6.11.2005 19:02:22

0.009923123 = product of:
  0.019846246 = sum of:
    0.019846246 = product of:
      0.03969249 = sum of:
        0.03969249 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03969249 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17098464 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04882723 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2761, 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=2761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:07:20

0.009923123 = product of:
  0.019846246 = sum of:
    0.019846246 = product of:
      0.03969249 = sum of:
        0.03969249 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03969249 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17098464 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04882723 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

8. 1.2019 18:22:45

0.008408763 = product of:
  0.016817527 = sum of:
    0.016817527 = product of:
      0.06727011 = sum of:
        0.06727011 = weight(_text_:authors in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06727011 = score(doc=4813,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22259426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04882723 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Methods developed for mapping the journal structure contained in aggregated journal-journal citations in the Science Citation Index (SCI; Thomson ISI, 2002) are applied to the Chinese Science Citation Database of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. This database covered 991 journals in 2001, of which only 37 originally had English titles; only 31 of which were covered by the SCI. Using factor-analytical and graph-analytical techniques, the authors show that the journal relations are dually structured. The main structure is the intellectual organization of the journals in journal groups (as in the international SCI), but the university-based journals provide an institutional layer that orients this structure towards practical ends (e.g., agriculture). This mechanism of integration is further distinguished from the role of general science journals. The Chinese Science Citation Database thus exhibits the characteristics of "Mode 2" or transdisciplinary science in the production of scientific knowledge more than its Western counterpart does. The contexts of application lead to correlation among the components.

0.008408763 = product of:
  0.016817527 = sum of:
    0.016817527 = product of:
      0.06727011 = sum of:
        0.06727011 = weight(_text_:authors in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06727011 = score(doc=4767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22259426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04882723 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 4767, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4767)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.008408763 = product of:
  0.016817527 = sum of:
    0.016817527 = product of:
      0.06727011 = sum of:
        0.06727011 = weight(_text_:authors in 2224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06727011 = score(doc=2224,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22259426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04882723 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 2224, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2224)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We present a novel routine, namely medlineR, based on the R language, that allows the user to match data from Medline/PubMed with records indexed in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) database. The matching allows exploiting the rich and controlled vocabulary of medical subject headings (MeSH) of Medline/PubMed with additional fields of WoS. The integration provides data (e.g., citation data, list of cited reference, list of the addresses of authors' host organizations, WoS subject categories) to perform a variety of scientometric analyses. This brief communication describes medlineR, the method on which it relies, and the steps the user should follow to perform the matching across the two databases. To demonstrate the differences from Leydesdorff and Opthof (Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1076-1080), we conclude this artcle by testing the routine on the MeSH category "Burgada syndrome."

0.008408763 = product of:
  0.016817527 = sum of:
    0.016817527 = product of:
      0.06727011 = sum of:
        0.06727011 = weight(_text_:authors in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06727011 = score(doc=3161,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22259426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04882723 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.00826927 = product of:
  0.01653854 = sum of:
    0.01653854 = product of:
      0.03307708 = sum of:
        0.03307708 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03307708 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17098464 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04882723 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2011 12:51:07

0.0070073027 = product of:
  0.014014605 = sum of:
    0.014014605 = product of:
      0.05605842 = sum of:
        0.05605842 = weight(_text_:authors in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05605842 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22259426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04882723 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Aggregated journal-journal citation networks based on the Journal Citation Reports 2004 of the Science Citation Index (5,968 journals) and the Social Science Citation Index (1,712 journals) are made accessible from the perspective of any of these journals. A vector-space model Is used for normalization, and the results are brought online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr04 as input files for the visualization program Pajek. The user is thus able to analyze the citation environment in terms of links and graphs. Furthermore, the local impact of a journal is defined as its share of the total citations in the specific journal's citation environments; the vertical size of the nodes is varied proportionally to this citation impact. The horizontal size of each node can be used to provide the same information after correction for within-journal (self-)citations. In the "citing" environment, the equivalents of this measure can be considered as a citation activity index which maps how the relevant journal environment is perceived by the collective of authors of a given journal. As a policy application, the mechanism of Interdisciplinary developments among the sciences is elaborated for the case of nanotechnology journals.

0.0070073027 = product of:
  0.014014605 = sum of:
    0.014014605 = product of:
      0.05605842 = sum of:
        0.05605842 = weight(_text_:authors in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05605842 = score(doc=1237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22259426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04882723 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The h-index provides us with 9 natural classes which can be written as a matrix of 3 vectors. The 3 vectors are: X = (X1, X2, X3) and indicates publication distribution in the h-core, the h-tail, and the uncited ones, respectively; Y = (Y1, Y2, Y3) denotes the citation distribution of the h-core, the h-tail and the so-called "excess" citations (above the h-threshold), respectively; and Z = (Z1, Z2, Z3) = (Y1-X1, Y2-X2, Y3-X3). The matrix V = (X,Y,Z)T constructs a measure of academic performance, in which the 9 numbers can all be provided with meanings in different dimensions. The "academic trace" tr(V) of this matrix follows naturally, and contributes a unique indicator for total academic achievements by summarizing and weighting the accumulation of publications and citations. This measure can also be used to combine the advantages of the h-index and the integrated impact indicator (I3) into a single number with a meaningful interpretation of the values. We illustrate the use of tr(V) for the cases of 2 journal sets, 2 universities, and ourselves as 2 individual authors.

0.0070073027 = product of:
  0.014014605 = sum of:
    0.014014605 = product of:
      0.05605842 = sum of:
        0.05605842 = weight(_text_:authors in 1241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05605842 = score(doc=1241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22259426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04882723 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1241, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1241)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) is applied to the citation curves of articles in six journals and to all citable items in a single field of science (virology, 24 journals) to distinguish among the developmental trajectories in subpopulations. Can citation patterns of highly-cited papers be distinguished in an early phase as "fast-breaking" papers? Can "late bloomers" or "sleeping beauties" be identified? Most interesting, we find differences between "sticky knowledge claims" that continue to be cited more than 10 years after publication and "transient knowledge claims" that show a decay pattern after reaching a peak within a few years. Only papers following the trajectory of a "sticky knowledge claim" can be expected to have a sustained impact. These findings raise questions about indicators of "excellence" that use aggregated citation rates after 2 or 3 years (e.g., impact factors). Because aggregated citation curves can also be composites of the two patterns, fifth-order polynomials (with four bending points) are needed to capture citation curves precisely. For the journals under study, the most frequently cited groups were furthermore much smaller than 10%. Although GBTM has proved a useful method for investigating differences among citation trajectories, the methodology does not allow us to define a percentage of highly cited papers inductively across different fields and journals. Using multinomial logistic regression, we conclude that predictor variables such as journal names, number of authors, etc., do not affect the stickiness of knowledge claims in terms of citations but only the levels of aggregated citations (which are field-specific).

0.0070073027 = product of:
  0.014014605 = sum of:
    0.014014605 = product of:
      0.05605842 = sum of:
        0.05605842 = weight(_text_:authors in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05605842 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22259426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04882723 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.