-
Leydesdorff, L.; Persson, O.: Mapping the geography of science : distribution patterns and networks of relations among cities and institutes (2010)
0.04
0.041098543 = product of:
0.12329563 = sum of:
0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 3704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02783884 = score(doc=3704,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 3704, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3704)
0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 3704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02783884 = score(doc=3704,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 3704, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3704)
0.03410816 = weight(_text_:software in 3704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03410816 = score(doc=3704,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12969498 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 3704, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3704)
0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 3704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02783884 = score(doc=3704,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 3704, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3704)
0.005670953 = weight(_text_:in in 3704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005670953 = score(doc=3704,freq=4.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 3704, 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=3704)
0.33333334 = coord(5/15)
- 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.
- Date
- 23. 7.2010 13:10:08
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bihui, J.: Mapping the Chinese Science Citation Database in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations (2005)
0.03
0.02510024 = product of:
0.0941259 = sum of:
0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02783884 = score(doc=4813,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02783884 = score(doc=4813,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02783884 = score(doc=4813,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
0.010609381 = weight(_text_:in in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010609381 = score(doc=4813,freq=14.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
- 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.
- Date
- 8. 1.2006 18:53:23
-
Zhou, P.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬A comparison between the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database and the Science Citation Index in terms of journal hierarchies and interjournal citation relations (2007)
0.02
0.024890373 = product of:
0.09333889 = sum of:
0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02783884 = score(doc=70,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02783884 = score(doc=70,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02783884 = score(doc=70,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
0.009822378 = weight(_text_:in in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009822378 = score(doc=70,freq=12.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 70, 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=70)
0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
- Abstract
- The journal structure in the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database (CSTPCD) is analyzed from three perspectives: the database level, the specialty level, and the institutional level (i.e., university journals vs. journals issued by the Chinese Academy of Sciences). The results are compared with those for (Chinese) journals included in the Science Citation Index (SCI). The frequency of journal-journal citation relations in the CSTPCD is an order of magnitude lower than in the SCI. Chinese journals, especially high-quality journals, prefer to cite international journals rather than domestic ones; however, Chinese journals do not get an equivalent reception from their international counterparts. The international visibility of Chinese journals is low, but varies among fields of science. Journals of the Chinese Academy of Sciences have a better reception in the international scientific community than university journals.
- Date
- 3. 3.2007 18:23:57
-
Leydesdorff, L.: How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? (2009)
0.02
0.023783326 = product of:
0.089187466 = sum of:
0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 2929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02783884 = score(doc=2929,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 2929, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2929)
0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 2929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02783884 = score(doc=2929,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 2929, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2929)
0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 2929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02783884 = score(doc=2929,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 2929, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2929)
0.005670953 = weight(_text_:in in 2929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005670953 = score(doc=2929,freq=4.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 2929, 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=2929)
0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
- Abstract
- The launching of Scopus and Google Scholar, and methodological developments in social-network analysis have made many more indicators for evaluating journals available than the traditional impact factor, cited half-life, and immediacy index of the ISI. In this study, these new indicators are compared with one another and with the older ones. Do the various indicators measure new dimensions of the citation networks, or are they highly correlated among themselves? Are they robust and relatively stable over time? Two main dimensions are distinguished - size and impact - which together shape influence. The h-index combines the two dimensions and can also be considered as an indicator of reach (like Indegree). PageRank is mainly an indicator of size, but has important interactions with centrality measures. The Scimago Journal Ranking (SJR) indicator provides an alternative to the journal impact factor, but the computation is less easy.
- Date
- 19. 7.2009 12:23:20
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Moya-Anegón, F.de; Guerrero-Bote, V.P.: Journal maps on the basis of Scopus data : a comparison with the Journal Citation Reports of the ISI (2010)
0.02
0.021232538 = product of:
0.079622015 = sum of:
0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023199033 = score(doc=3335,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023199033 = score(doc=3335,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023199033 = score(doc=3335,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
0.010024922 = weight(_text_:in in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010024922 = score(doc=3335,freq=18.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 3335, 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=3335)
0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
- Abstract
- Using the Scopus dataset (1996-2007) a grand matrix of aggregated journal-journal citations was constructed. This matrix can be compared in terms of the network structures with the matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI). Because the Scopus database contains a larger number of journals and covers the humanities, one would expect richer maps. However, the matrix is in this case sparser than in the case of the ISI data. This is because of (a) the larger number of journals covered by Scopus and (b) the historical record of citations older than 10 years contained in the ISI database. When the data is highly structured, as in the case of large journals, the maps are comparable, although one may have to vary a threshold (because of the differences in densities). In the case of interdisciplinary journals and journals in the social sciences and humanities, the new database does not add a lot to what is possible with the ISI databases.
- Date
- 31. 5.2010 15:02:23
-
Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016)
0.02
0.021232538 = product of:
0.079622015 = sum of:
0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023199033 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023199033 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023199033 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.010024922 = weight(_text_:in in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010024922 = score(doc=3231,freq=18.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = 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)
0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
- 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.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Rafols, I.: ¬A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories (2009)
0.02
0.020341435 = product of:
0.07628038 = sum of:
0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 2713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023199033 = score(doc=2713,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 2713, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2713)
0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 2713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023199033 = score(doc=2713,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 2713, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2713)
0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 2713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023199033 = score(doc=2713,freq=2.0), product of:
0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 2713, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2713)
0.0066832816 = weight(_text_:in in 2713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0066832816 = score(doc=2713,freq=8.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 2713, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2713)
0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
- Abstract
- The decomposition of scientific literature into disciplinary and subdisciplinary structures is one of the core goals of scientometrics. How can we achieve a good decomposition? The ISI subject categories classify journals included in the Science Citation Index (SCI). The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports can be aggregated on the basis of these categories. This leads to an asymmetrical matrix (citing versus cited) that is much more densely populated than the underlying matrix at the journal level. Exploratory factor analysis of the matrix of subject categories suggests a 14-factor solution. This solution could be interpreted as the disciplinary structure of science. The nested maps of science (corresponding to 14 factors, 172 categories, and 6,164 journals) are online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/map06. Presumably, inaccuracies in the attribution of journals to the ISI subject categories average out so that the factor analysis reveals the main structures. The mapping of science could, therefore, be comprehensive and reliable on a large scale albeit imprecise in terms of the attribution of journals to the ISI subject categories.
- Date
- 23. 2.2009 19:54:19
-
Leydesdorff, L.: Clusters and maps of science journals based on bi-connected graphs in Journal Citation Reports (2004)
0.01
0.0058574053 = product of:
0.043930538 = sum of:
0.03410816 = weight(_text_:software in 4427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03410816 = score(doc=4427,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12969498 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 4427, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4427)
0.009822378 = weight(_text_:in in 4427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009822378 = score(doc=4427,freq=12.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 4427, 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=4427)
0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
- Abstract
- The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix derived from Journal Citation Reports 2001 can be decomposed into a unique subject classification using the graph-analytical algorithm of bi-connected components. This technique was recently incorporated in software tools for social network analysis. The matrix can be assessed in terms of its decomposability using articulation points which indicate overlap between the components. The articulation points of this set did not exhibit a next-order network of "general science" journals. However, the clusters differ in size and in terms of the internal density of their relations. A full classification of the journals is provided in the Appendix. The clusters can also be extracted and mapped for the visualization.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Vaughan, L.: Co-occurrence matrices and their applications in information science : extending ACA to the Web environment (2006)
0.00
0.0046808994 = product of:
0.035106745 = sum of:
0.028423464 = weight(_text_:software in 6113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028423464 = score(doc=6113,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12969498 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 6113, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6113)
0.0066832816 = weight(_text_:in in 6113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0066832816 = score(doc=6113,freq=8.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 6113, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6113)
0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
- Abstract
- Co-occurrence matrices, such as cocitation, coword, and colink matrices, have been used widely in the information sciences. However, confusion and controversy have hindered the proper statistical analysis of these data. The underlying problem, in our opinion, involved understanding the nature of various types of matrices. This article discusses the difference between a symmetrical cocitation matrix and an asymmetrical citation matrix as well as the appropriate statistical techniques that can be applied to each of these matrices, respectively. Similarity measures (such as the Pearson correlation coefficient or the cosine) should not be applied to the symmetrical cocitation matrix but can be applied to the asymmetrical citation matrix to derive the proximity matrix. The argument is illustrated with examples. The study then extends the application of co-occurrence matrices to the Web environment, in which the nature of the available data and thus data collection methods are different from those of traditional databases such as the Science Citation Index. A set of data collected with the Google Scholar search engine is analyzed by using both the traditional methods of multivariate analysis and the new visualization software Pajek, which is based on social network analysis and graph theory.
-
Leydesdorff, L.: Can networks of journal-journal citations be used as indicators of change in the social sciences? (2003)
0.00
0.0028719099 = product of:
0.021539323 = sum of:
0.012680635 = weight(_text_:in in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012680635 = score(doc=4460,freq=20.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.28515202 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
0.008858688 = product of:
0.026576065 = sum of:
0.026576065 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026576065 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
- Abstract
- Aggregated journal-journal citations can be used for mapping the intellectual organization of the sciences in terms of specialties because the latter can be considered as interreading communities. Can the journal-journal citations also be used as early indicators of change by comparing the files for two subsequent years? Probabilistic entropy measures enable us to analyze changes in large datasets at different levels of aggregation and in considerable detail. Compares Journal Citation Reports of the Social Science Citation Index for 1999 with similar data for 1998 and analyzes the differences using these measures. Compares the various indicators with similar developments in the Science Citation Index. Specialty formation seems a more important mechanism in the development of the social sciences than in the natural and life sciences, but the developments in the social sciences are volatile. The use of aggregate statistics based on the Science Citation Index is ill-advised in the case of the social sciences because of structural differences in the underlying dynamics.
- Date
- 6.11.2005 19:02:22
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Sun, Y.: National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan : university-industry-government versus international coauthorship relations (2009)
0.00
0.0025957427 = product of:
0.01946807 = sum of:
0.010609381 = weight(_text_:in in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010609381 = score(doc=2761,freq=14.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
0.008858688 = product of:
0.026576065 = sum of:
0.026576065 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026576065 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
- Abstract
- International co-authorship relations and university-industry-government (Triple Helix) relations have hitherto been studied separately. Using Japanese publication data for the 1981-2004 period, we were able to study both kinds of relations in a single design. In the Japanese file, 1,277,030 articles with at least one Japanese address were attributed to the three sectors, and we know additionally whether these papers were coauthored internationally. Using the mutual information in three and four dimensions, respectively, we show that the Japanese Triple-Helix system has been continuously eroded at the national level. However, since the mid-1990s, international coauthorship relations have contributed to a reduction of the uncertainty at the national level. In other words, the national publication system of Japan has developed a capacity to retain surplus value generated internationally. In a final section, we compare these results with an analysis based on similar data for Canada. A relative uncoupling of national university-industry-government relations because of international collaborations is indicated in both countries.
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:07:20
-
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
0.002320955 = product of:
0.017407162 = sum of:
0.010024922 = weight(_text_:in in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010024922 = score(doc=4186,freq=18.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = 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)
0.00738224 = product of:
0.02214672 = sum of:
0.02214672 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02214672 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
- 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
-
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)
0.00
0.002163119 = product of:
0.016223392 = sum of:
0.008841151 = weight(_text_:in in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008841151 = score(doc=3089,freq=14.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 3089, 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=3089)
0.00738224 = product of:
0.02214672 = sum of:
0.02214672 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02214672 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
- Abstract
- Climate change as a complex physical and social issue has gained increasing attention in the natural as well as the social sciences. Climate change research has become more interdisciplinary and even transdisciplinary as a typical Mode-2 science that is also dependent on an application context for its further development. We propose to approach interdisciplinarity as a co-construction of the knowledge base in the reference patterns and the programmatic focus in the editorials in the core journal of the climate-change sciences-Climatic Change-during the period 1977-2013. First, we analyze the knowledge base of the journal and map journal-journal relations on the basis of the references in the articles. Second, we follow the development of the programmatic focus by analyzing the semantics in the editorials. We argue that interdisciplinarity is a result of the co-construction between different agendas: The selection of publications into the knowledge base of the journal, and the adjustment of the programmatic focus to the political context in the editorials. Our results show a widening of the knowledge base from referencing the multidisciplinary journals Nature and Science to citing journals from specialist fields. The programmatic focus follows policy-oriented issues and incorporates public metaphors.
- Date
- 24. 8.2016 17:53:22
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.00
0.0021072212 = product of:
0.015804159 = sum of:
0.00694547 = weight(_text_:in in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00694547 = score(doc=4681,freq=6.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = 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)
0.008858688 = product of:
0.026576065 = sum of:
0.026576065 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026576065 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
- 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
-
Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The construction and globalization of the knowledge base in inter-human communication systems (2003)
0.00
0.0019372856 = product of:
0.014529642 = sum of:
0.005670953 = weight(_text_:in in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005670953 = score(doc=1621,freq=4.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 1621, 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=1621)
0.008858688 = product of:
0.026576065 = sum of:
0.026576065 = weight(_text_:22 in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026576065 = score(doc=1621,freq=2.0), product of:
0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
- Abstract
- The relationship between the "knowledge base" and the "globalization" of communication systems is discussed from the perspective of communication theory. I argue that inter-human communication takes place at two levels. At the first level information is exchanged and provided with meaning and at the second level meaning can reflexively be communicated. Human language can be considered as the evolutionary achievement which enables us to use these two channels of communication simultaneously. Providing meaning with hindsight is a recursive operation: a meaning that makes a difference can be considered as knowledge. If the production of knowledge is socially organized, the perspective of hindsight can further be codified. This adds globalization to the historically stabilized patterns of communications. Globalization can be expected to transform the communications in an evolutionary mode. However, the self-organization of a knowledge-based society remains an expectation with the status of a hypothesis.
- Date
- 22. 5.2003 19:48:04
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Johnson, M.W.; Ivanova, I.: Toward a calculus of redundancy : signification, codification, and anticipation in cultural evolution (2018)
0.00
0.001875403 = product of:
0.014065522 = sum of:
0.0066832816 = weight(_text_:in in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0066832816 = score(doc=4463,freq=8.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
0.00738224 = product of:
0.02214672 = sum of:
0.02214672 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02214672 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
- Abstract
- This article considers the relationships among meaning generation, selection, and the dynamics of discourse from a variety of perspectives ranging from information theory and biology to sociology. Following Husserl's idea of a horizon of meanings in intersubjective communication, we propose a way in which, using Shannon's equations, the generation and selection of meanings from a horizon of possibilities can be considered probabilistically. The information-theoretical dynamics we articulate considers a process of meaning generation within cultural evolution: information is imbued with meaning, and through this process, the number of options for the selection of meaning in discourse proliferates. The redundancy of possible meanings contributes to a codification of expectations within the discourse. Unlike hardwired DNA, the codes of nonbiological systems can coevolve with the variations. Spanning horizons of meaning, the codes structure the communications as selection environments that shape discourses. Discursive knowledge can be considered as meta-coded communication that enables us to translate among differently coded communications. The dynamics of discursive knowledge production can thus infuse the historical dynamics with a cultural evolution by adding options, that is, by increasing redundancy. A calculus of redundancy is presented as an indicator whereby these dynamics of discourse and meaning may be explored empirically.
- Date
- 29. 9.2018 11:22:09
-
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
9.356594E-4 = product of:
0.014034891 = sum of:
0.014034891 = weight(_text_:in in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014034891 = score(doc=4466,freq=18.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = 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)
0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
- 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.
-
Leydesdorff, L.: Dynamic and evolutionary updates of classificatory schemes in scientific journal structures (2002)
0.00
8.821482E-4 = product of:
0.013232223 = sum of:
0.013232223 = weight(_text_:in in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013232223 = score(doc=1249,freq=16.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.29755569 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
- Abstract
- Can the inclusion of new journals in the Science Citation Index be used for the indication of structural change in the database, and how can this change be compared with reorganizations of reiations among previously included journals? Change in the number of journals (n) is distinguished from change in the number of journal categories (m). Although the number of journals can be considered as a given at each moment in time, the number of journal categories is based an a reconstruction that is time-stamped ex post. The reflexive reconstruction is in need of an update when new information becomes available in a next year. Implications of this shift towards an evolutionary perspective are specified.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Park, H.W.; Wagner, C.: International coauthorship relations in the Social Sciences Citation Index : is internationalization leading the Network? (2014)
0.00
8.3355175E-4 = product of:
0.012503276 = sum of:
0.012503276 = weight(_text_:in in 1505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012503276 = score(doc=1505,freq=28.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = 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)
0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
- 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.
-
Leydesdorff, L.: Can scientific journals be classified in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations using the Journal Citation Reports? (2006)
0.00
8.019938E-4 = product of:
0.012029907 = sum of:
0.012029907 = weight(_text_:in in 5046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012029907 = score(doc=5046,freq=18.0), product of:
0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.032692216 = queryNorm
0.27051896 = fieldWeight in 5046, 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=5046)
0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
- Abstract
- The aggregated citation relations among journals included in the Science Citation Index provide us with a huge matrix, which can be analyzed in various ways. By using principal component analysis or factor analysis, the factor scores can be employed as indicators of the position of the cited journals in the citing dimensions of the database. Unrotated factor scores are exact, and the extraction of principal components can be made stepwise because the principal components are independent. Rotation may be needed for the designation, but in the rotated solution a model is assumed. This assumption can be legitimated on pragmatic or theoretical grounds. Because the resulting outcomes remain sensitive to the assumptions in the model, an unambiguous classification is no longer possible in this case. However, the factor-analytic solutions allow us to test classifications against the structures contained in the database; in this article the process will be demonstrated for the delineation of a set of biochemistry journals.
