Search (26 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Leydesdorff, L."
  1. Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016) 0.04 
    0.03557572 = sum of:
  0.022134658 = product of:
    0.13280794 = sum of:
      0.13280794 = weight(_text_:authors in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13280794 = score(doc=3231,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.1864456 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.040897828 = 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)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.013441064 = product of:
    0.026882129 = sum of:
      0.026882129 = weight(_text_:c in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026882129 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14107318 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.040897828 = queryNorm
          0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
    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.
  2. 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) 0.03 
    0.027293792 = product of:
  0.054587584 = sum of:
    0.054587584 = sum of:
      0.026882129 = weight(_text_:c in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026882129 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14107318 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.040897828 = queryNorm
          0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
      0.027705455 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027705455 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14321722 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.040897828 = 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)
    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
  3. Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.; Leydesdorff, L.: BRICS countries and scientific excellence : a bibliometric analysis of most frequently cited papers (2015) 0.02 
    0.021266848 = sum of:
  0.0078257825 = product of:
    0.046954695 = sum of:
      0.046954695 = weight(_text_:authors in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046954695 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1864456 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.040897828 = 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)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.013441064 = product of:
    0.026882129 = sum of:
      0.026882129 = weight(_text_:c in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026882129 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14107318 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.040897828 = queryNorm
          0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
    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.
  4. Leydesdorff, L.; Wagner, C,; Bornmann, L.: Replicability and the public/private divide (2016) 0.02 
    0.01612928 = product of:
  0.03225856 = sum of:
    0.03225856 = product of:
      0.06451712 = sum of:
        0.06451712 = weight(_text_:c in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06451712 = score(doc=3023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14107318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.45733082 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  5. Leydesdorff, L.; Park, H.W.; Wagner, C.: International coauthorship relations in the Social Sciences Citation Index : is internationalization leading the Network? (2014) 0.01 
    0.009504269 = product of:
  0.019008538 = sum of:
    0.019008538 = product of:
      0.038017076 = sum of:
        0.038017076 = weight(_text_:c in 1505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038017076 = score(doc=1505,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14107318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.2694848 = fieldWeight in 1505, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1505)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  6. Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The construction and globalization of the knowledge base in inter-human communication systems (2003) 0.01 
    0.008311636 = product of:
  0.016623272 = sum of:
    0.016623272 = product of:
      0.033246543 = sum of:
        0.033246543 = weight(_text_:22 in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033246543 = score(doc=1621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14321722 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1621, 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=1621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 5.2003 19:48:04
  7. Leydesdorff, L.: Can networks of journal-journal citations be used as indicators of change in the social sciences? (2003) 0.01 
    0.008311636 = product of:
  0.016623272 = sum of:
    0.016623272 = product of:
      0.033246543 = sum of:
        0.033246543 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033246543 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14321722 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = 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
  8. Leydesdorff, L.; Sun, Y.: National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan : university-industry-government versus international coauthorship relations (2009) 0.01 
    0.008311636 = product of:
  0.016623272 = sum of:
    0.016623272 = product of:
      0.033246543 = sum of:
        0.033246543 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033246543 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14321722 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = 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
  9. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.01 
    0.008311636 = product of:
  0.016623272 = sum of:
    0.016623272 = product of:
      0.033246543 = sum of:
        0.033246543 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033246543 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14321722 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = 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
  10. Leydesdorff, L.; Probst, C.: ¬The delineation of an interdisciplinary specialty in terms of a journal set : the case of communication studies (2009) 0.01 
    0.00806464 = product of:
  0.01612928 = sum of:
    0.01612928 = product of:
      0.03225856 = sum of:
        0.03225856 = weight(_text_:c in 2952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03225856 = score(doc=2952,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14107318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 2952, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  11. 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) 0.01 
    0.00806464 = product of:
  0.01612928 = sum of:
    0.01612928 = product of:
      0.03225856 = sum of:
        0.03225856 = weight(_text_:c in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03225856 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14107318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  12. Leydesdorff, L.; Goldstone, R.L.: Interdisciplinarity at the journal and specialty level : the changing knowledge bases of the journal cognitive science (2014) 0.01 
    0.00806464 = product of:
  0.01612928 = sum of:
    0.01612928 = product of:
      0.03225856 = sum of:
        0.03225856 = weight(_text_:c in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03225856 = score(doc=1187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14107318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  13. Leydesdorff, L.: Theories of citation? (1999) 0.01 
    0.0077471295 = product of:
  0.015494259 = sum of:
    0.015494259 = product of:
      0.09296555 = sum of:
        0.09296555 = weight(_text_:authors in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09296555 = score(doc=5130,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1864456 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = 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)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  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
  14. Hellsten, I.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The construction of interdisciplinarity : the development of the knowledge base and programmatic focus of the journal Climatic Change, 1977-2013 (2016) 0.01 
    0.006926364 = product of:
  0.013852728 = sum of:
    0.013852728 = product of:
      0.027705455 = sum of:
        0.027705455 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027705455 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14321722 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = 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
  15. Leydesdorff, L.; Johnson, M.W.; Ivanova, I.: Toward a calculus of redundancy : signification, codification, and anticipation in cultural evolution (2018) 0.01 
    0.006926364 = product of:
  0.013852728 = sum of:
    0.013852728 = product of:
      0.027705455 = sum of:
        0.027705455 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027705455 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14321722 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = 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
  16. Leydesdorff, L.; Rafols, I.; Chen, C.: Interactive overlays of journals and the measurement of interdisciplinarity on the basis of aggregated journal-journal citations (2013) 0.01 
    0.006720532 = product of:
  0.013441064 = sum of:
    0.013441064 = product of:
      0.026882129 = sum of:
        0.026882129 = weight(_text_:c in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026882129 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14107318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  17. Chen, C.; Leydesdorff, L.: Patterns of connections and movements in dual-map overlays : a new method of publication portfolio analysis (2014) 0.01 
    0.006720532 = product of:
  0.013441064 = sum of:
    0.013441064 = product of:
      0.026882129 = sum of:
        0.026882129 = weight(_text_:c in 1200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026882129 = score(doc=1200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14107318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 1200, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  18. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Mingers, J.: Statistical significance and effect sizes of differences among research universities at the level of nations and worldwide based on the Leiden rankings (2019) 0.01 
    0.006720532 = product of:
  0.013441064 = sum of:
    0.013441064 = product of:
      0.026882129 = sum of:
        0.026882129 = weight(_text_:c in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026882129 = score(doc=5225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14107318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The Leiden Rankings can be used for grouping research universities by considering universities which are not statistically significantly different as homogeneous sets. The groups and intergroup relations can be analyzed and visualized using tools from network analysis. Using the so-called "excellence indicator" PPtop-10%-the proportion of the top-10% most-highly-cited papers assigned to a university-we pursue a classification using (a) overlapping stability intervals, (b) statistical-significance tests, and (c) effect sizes of differences among 902 universities in 54 countries; we focus on the UK, Germany, Brazil, and the USA as national examples. Although the groupings remain largely the same using different statistical significance levels or overlapping stability intervals, these classifications are uncorrelated with those based on effect sizes. Effect sizes for the differences between universities are small (w < .2). The more detailed analysis of universities at the country level suggests that distinctions beyond three or perhaps four groups of universities (high, middle, low) may not be meaningful. Given similar institutional incentives, isomorphism within each eco-system of universities should not be underestimated. Our results suggest that networks based on overlapping stability intervals can provide a first impression of the relevant groupings among universities. However, the clusters are not well-defined divisions between groups of universities.
  19. Leydesdorff, L.; Bihui, J.: Mapping the Chinese Science Citation Database in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations (2005) 0.00 
    0.0046954695 = product of:
  0.009390939 = sum of:
    0.009390939 = product of:
      0.056345634 = sum of:
        0.056345634 = weight(_text_:authors in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056345634 = score(doc=4813,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1864456 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = 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)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  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.
  20. Leydesdorff, L.; Persson, O.: Mapping the geography of science : distribution patterns and networks of relations among cities and institutes (2010) 0.00 
    0.0046954695 = product of:
  0.009390939 = sum of:
    0.009390939 = product of:
      0.056345634 = sum of:
        0.056345634 = weight(_text_:authors in 3704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056345634 = score(doc=3704,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1864456 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = 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)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  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.

Authors

Years

Themes