Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)
- Did you mean:
- rvk_ss%3a%2200 74500 allgemeines %2f buch- und bibliothekswesen%2c informationswissenschaft %2f bibliothekswesen %2f kataloge%2c katalogisierung %2f titelaufnahme%2c katalogisierung im ausland %28.6 1%29 %2f international%2c allgemeines%22 2
- rvk_ss%3a%2200 74500 allgemeines %2f buch- und bibliothekswesen%2c informationswissenschaft %2f bibliothekswesen %2f kataloge%2c katalogisierung %2f titelaufnahme%2c katalogisierung im ausland %28.6 1%29 %2f international%2c allgemeinen%22 2
- rvk_ss%3a%2200 74500 allgemeines %2f buch- und bibliothekswesen%2c informationswissenschaft %2f bibliothekswesen %2f kataloge%2c katalogisierung %2f titelaufnahme%2c katalogisierungs im ausland %28.6 1%29 %2f international%2c allgemeines%22 2
- rvk_ss%3a%2200 74500 allgemeines %2f buch- und bibliothekswesen%2c informationswissenschaft %2f bibliothekswesen %2f kataloge%2c katalogisierung %2f titelaufnahmen%2c katalogisierung im ausland %28.6 1%29 %2f international%2c allgemeines%22 2
- rvk_ss%3a%2200 74500 allgemeines %2f buch- und bibliothekswesen%2c informationswissenschaft %2f bibliothekswesen %2f kataloge%2c katalogisierungs %2f titelaufnahme%2c katalogisierung im ausland %28.6 1%29 %2f international%2c allgemeines%22 2
-
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
-
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.