Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

0.021103898 = product of:
  0.042207796 = sum of:
    0.042207796 = product of:
      0.16883118 = sum of:
        0.16883118 = weight(_text_:authors in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16883118 = score(doc=3231,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = 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.

0.014772727 = product of:
  0.029545454 = sum of:
    0.029545454 = product of:
      0.11818182 = sum of:
        0.11818182 = weight(_text_:authors in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11818182 = score(doc=5130,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = 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

0.0136884125 = product of:
  0.027376825 = sum of:
    0.027376825 = product of:
      0.05475365 = sum of:
        0.05475365 = weight(_text_:f in 4107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05475365 = score(doc=4107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = queryNorm
            0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 4107, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Impact factors (and similar measures such as the Scimago Journal Rankings) suffer from two problems: (a) citation behavior varies among fields of science and, therefore, leads to systematic differences, and (b) there are no statistics to inform us whether differences are significant. The recently introduced "source normalized impact per paper" indicator of Scopus tries to remedy the first of these two problems, but a number of normalization decisions are involved, which makes it impossible to test for significance. Using fractional counting of citations-based on the assumption that impact is proportionate to the number of references in the citing documents-citations can be contextualized at the paper level and aggregated impacts of sets can be tested for their significance. It can be shown that the weighted impact of Annals of Mathematics (0.247) is not so much lower than that of Molecular Cell (0.386) despite a five-f old difference between their impact factors (2.793 and 13.156, respectively).

0.0136884125 = product of:
  0.027376825 = sum of:
    0.027376825 = product of:
      0.05475365 = sum of:
        0.05475365 = weight(_text_:f in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05475365 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = queryNorm
            0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.01140701 = product of:
  0.02281402 = sum of:
    0.02281402 = product of:
      0.04562804 = sum of:
        0.04562804 = weight(_text_:f in 1814) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04562804 = score(doc=1814,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = queryNorm
            0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 1814, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1814)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.01140701 = product of:
  0.02281402 = sum of:
    0.02281402 = product of:
      0.04562804 = sum of:
        0.04562804 = weight(_text_:f in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04562804 = score(doc=3090,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = queryNorm
            0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 3090, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3090)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.01140701 = product of:
  0.02281402 = sum of:
    0.02281402 = product of:
      0.04562804 = sum of:
        0.04562804 = weight(_text_:f in 5390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04562804 = score(doc=5390,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = queryNorm
            0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 5390, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5390)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010566111 = product of:
  0.021132221 = sum of:
    0.021132221 = product of:
      0.042264443 = sum of:
        0.042264443 = weight(_text_:22 in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042264443 = score(doc=1621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = 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

0.010566111 = product of:
  0.021132221 = sum of:
    0.021132221 = product of:
      0.042264443 = sum of:
        0.042264443 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042264443 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = 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

0.010566111 = product of:
  0.021132221 = sum of:
    0.021132221 = product of:
      0.042264443 = sum of:
        0.042264443 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042264443 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = 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

0.010566111 = product of:
  0.021132221 = sum of:
    0.021132221 = product of:
      0.042264443 = sum of:
        0.042264443 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042264443 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = 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

0.008953625 = product of:
  0.01790725 = sum of:
    0.01790725 = product of:
      0.071629 = sum of:
        0.071629 = weight(_text_:authors in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071629 = score(doc=4813,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = 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.

0.008953625 = product of:
  0.01790725 = sum of:
    0.01790725 = product of:
      0.071629 = sum of:
        0.071629 = weight(_text_:authors in 3704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071629 = score(doc=3704,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = 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.

0.008953625 = product of:
  0.01790725 = sum of:
    0.01790725 = product of:
      0.071629 = sum of:
        0.071629 = weight(_text_:authors in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071629 = score(doc=4767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = 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.

0.008953625 = product of:
  0.01790725 = sum of:
    0.01790725 = product of:
      0.071629 = sum of:
        0.071629 = weight(_text_:authors in 2224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071629 = score(doc=2224,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = 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."

0.008953625 = product of:
  0.01790725 = sum of:
    0.01790725 = product of:
      0.071629 = sum of:
        0.071629 = weight(_text_:authors in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071629 = score(doc=3161,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = 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.

0.008805092 = product of:
  0.017610185 = sum of:
    0.017610185 = product of:
      0.03522037 = sum of:
        0.03522037 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03522037 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = 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

0.008805092 = product of:
  0.017610185 = sum of:
    0.017610185 = product of:
      0.03522037 = sum of:
        0.03522037 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03522037 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = 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

0.008805092 = product of:
  0.017610185 = sum of:
    0.017610185 = product of:
      0.03522037 = sum of:
        0.03522037 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03522037 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = 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

0.007461354 = product of:
  0.014922708 = sum of:
    0.014922708 = product of:
      0.059690833 = sum of:
        0.059690833 = weight(_text_:authors in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059690833 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051991083 = 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.