Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Li, K."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Zhao, M.; Yan, E.; Li, K.: Data set mentions and citations : a content analysis of full-text publications (2018) 0.00 
    0.0012504549 = product of:
  0.028760463 = sum of:
    0.028760463 = sum of:
      0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0094278185 = score(doc=4008,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
            0.023567878 = queryNorm
          0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
      0.019332644 = weight(_text_:29 in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019332644 = score(doc=4008,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.023567878 = queryNorm
          0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Date
    18.12.2017 16:29:01
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.32-46
  2. Yan, E.; Li, K.: Which domains do open-access journals do best in? : a 5-year longitudinal study (2018) 0.00 
    1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 4257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=4257,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 4257, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4257)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Abstract
    Although researchers have begun to investigate the difference in scientific impact between closed-access and open-access journals, studies that focus specifically on dynamic and disciplinary differences remain scarce. This study serves to fill this gap by using a large longitudinal dataset to examine these differences. Using CiteScore as a proxy for journal scientific impact, we employ a series of statistical tests to identify the quartile categories and disciplinary areas in which impact trends differ notably between closed- and open-access journals. We find that closed-access journals have a noticeable advantage in social sciences (for example, business and economics), whereas open-access journals perform well in medical and healthcare domains (for example, health profession and nursing). Moreover, we find that after controlling for a journal's rank and disciplinary differences, there are statistically more closed-access journals in the top 10%, Quartile 1, and Quartile 2 categories as measured by CiteScore; in contrast, more open-access journals in Quartile 4 gained scientific impact from 2011 to 2015. Considering dynamic and disciplinary trends in tandem, we find that more closed-access journals in Social Sciences gained in impact, whereas in biochemistry and medicine, more open-access journals experienced such gains.

Authors