Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.07156823 = sum of:
  0.014674889 = product of:
    0.058699556 = sum of:
      0.058699556 = weight(_text_:authors in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.058699556 = score(doc=1237,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = 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)
  0.056893338 = product of:
    0.113786675 = sum of:
      0.113786675 = weight(_text_:z in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.113786675 = score(doc=1237,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2728844 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.41697758 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
    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.

0.020753428 = product of:
  0.041506857 = sum of:
    0.041506857 = product of:
      0.16602743 = sum of:
        0.16602743 = weight(_text_:authors in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16602743 = score(doc=3231,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051127672 = 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.

0.01039064 = product of:
  0.02078128 = sum of:
    0.02078128 = product of:
      0.04156256 = sum of:
        0.04156256 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04156256 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1790404 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051127672 = 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

0.008804933 = product of:
  0.017609866 = sum of:
    0.017609866 = product of:
      0.070439465 = sum of:
        0.070439465 = weight(_text_:authors in 3704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070439465 = score(doc=3704,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051127672 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3704, 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=3704)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using Google Earth, Google Maps, and/or network visualization programs such as Pajek, one can overlay the network of relations among addresses in scientific publications onto the geographic map. The authors discuss the pros and cons of various options, and provide software (freeware) for bridging existing gaps between the Science Citation Indices (Thomson Reuters) and Scopus (Elsevier), on the one hand, and these various visualization tools on the other. At the level of city names, the global map can be drawn reliably on the basis of the available address information. At the level of the names of organizations and institutes, there are problems of unification both in the ISI databases and with Scopus. Pajek enables a combination of visualization and statistical analysis, whereas the Google Maps and its derivatives provide superior tools on the Internet.

0.008804933 = product of:
  0.017609866 = sum of:
    0.017609866 = product of:
      0.070439465 = sum of:
        0.070439465 = weight(_text_:authors in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070439465 = score(doc=4767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051127672 = 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.

0.008804933 = product of:
  0.017609866 = sum of:
    0.017609866 = product of:
      0.070439465 = sum of:
        0.070439465 = weight(_text_:authors in 2224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070439465 = score(doc=2224,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051127672 = 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."

0.008804933 = product of:
  0.017609866 = sum of:
    0.017609866 = product of:
      0.070439465 = sum of:
        0.070439465 = weight(_text_:authors in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070439465 = score(doc=3161,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051127672 = 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.

0.008658867 = product of:
  0.017317735 = sum of:
    0.017317735 = product of:
      0.03463547 = sum of:
        0.03463547 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03463547 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1790404 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051127672 = 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

0.008658867 = product of:
  0.017317735 = sum of:
    0.017317735 = product of:
      0.03463547 = sum of:
        0.03463547 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03463547 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1790404 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051127672 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3089, 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=3089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

24. 8.2016 17:53:22

0.008658867 = product of:
  0.017317735 = sum of:
    0.017317735 = product of:
      0.03463547 = sum of:
        0.03463547 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03463547 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1790404 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051127672 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4463, 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=4463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

29. 9.2018 11:22:09

0.0073374445 = product of:
  0.014674889 = sum of:
    0.014674889 = product of:
      0.058699556 = sum of:
        0.058699556 = weight(_text_:authors in 1241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058699556 = score(doc=1241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051127672 = 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).

0.0073374445 = product of:
  0.014674889 = sum of:
    0.014674889 = product of:
      0.058699556 = sum of:
        0.058699556 = weight(_text_:authors in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058699556 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051127672 = 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.