Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0381531 = product of:
  0.0763062 = sum of:
    0.0763062 = sum of:
      0.04547849 = weight(_text_:subject in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04547849 = score(doc=4147,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
      0.03082771 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03082771 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.

Date

8. 1.2011 19:22:13

0.016079074 = product of:
  0.032158148 = sum of:
    0.032158148 = product of:
      0.064316295 = sum of:
        0.064316295 = weight(_text_:subject in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064316295 = score(doc=4465,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Increasing interdisciplinarity has been a policy objective since the 1990s, promoted by many governments and funding agencies, but the question is: How deeply has this affected the social sciences? Although numerous articles have suggested that research has become more interdisciplinary, yet no study has compared the extent to which the interdisciplinarity of different social science subjects has changed. To address this gap, changes in the level of interdisciplinarity since 1980 are investigated for subjects with many articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), using the percentage of cross-disciplinary citing documents (PCDCD) to evaluate interdisciplinarity. For the 14 SSCI subjects investigated, the median level of interdisciplinarity, as measured using cross-disciplinary citations, declined from 1980 to 1990, but rose sharply between 1990 and 2000, confirming previous research. This increase was not fully matched by an increase in the percentage of articles that were assigned to more than one subject category. Nevertheless, although on average the social sciences have recently become more interdisciplinary, the extent of this change varies substantially from subject to subject. The SSCI subject with the largest increase in interdisciplinarity between 1990 and 2000 was Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) but there is evidence that the level of interdisciplinarity of IS&LS increased less quickly during the first decade of this century.

0.012331083 = product of:
  0.024662167 = sum of:
    0.024662167 = product of:
      0.049324334 = sum of:
        0.049324334 = weight(_text_:22 in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049324334 = score(doc=7245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7245, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of document and text management. 2(1994) no.1, S.10-22

0.012331083 = product of:
  0.024662167 = sum of:
    0.024662167 = product of:
      0.049324334 = sum of:
        0.049324334 = weight(_text_:22 in 7670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049324334 = score(doc=7670,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7670, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7670)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.6, S.407-421

0.009248313 = product of:
  0.018496625 = sum of:
    0.018496625 = product of:
      0.03699325 = sum of:
        0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 42) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03699325 = score(doc=42,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 42, 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=42)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information studies. 3(1997) no.1, S.5-22

0.009248313 = product of:
  0.018496625 = sum of:
    0.018496625 = product of:
      0.03699325 = sum of:
        0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03699325 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3662, 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=3662)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

8. 7.2010 19:22:45

0.009095698 = product of:
  0.018191395 = sum of:
    0.018191395 = product of:
      0.03638279 = sum of:
        0.03638279 = weight(_text_:subject in 5603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03638279 = score(doc=5603,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.22353725 = fieldWeight in 5603, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5603)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to analyse the structure of a small number of abstracts that have appeared in the CABI database over a number of years, during which time the authorship of the abstracts changed from CABI editorial staff to journal article authors themselves. This paper reports a study of the semantic organisation and thematic structure of 12 abstracts from the field of protozoology in an effort to discover whether these abstracts followed generally agreed abstracting guidelines. Design/methodology/approach - The method adopted was a move analysis of the text of the abstracts. This move analysis revealed a five-move pattern: move 1 situates the research within the scientific community; move 2 introduces the research by either describing the main features of the research or presenting its purpose; move 3 describes the methodology; move 4 states the results; and move 5 draws conclusions or suggests practical applications. Findings - Thematic analysis shows that scientific abstract authors thematise their subject by referring to the discourse domain or the "real" world. Not all of the abstracts succeeded in following the guideline advice. However, there was general consistency regarding semantic organisation and thematic structure. Research limitations/implications - The research limitations were the small number of abstracts examined, from just one subject domain. Practical limitations - The practical implications are the need for abstracting services to be clearer and more prescriptive regarding how they want abstracts to be structured as the lack of formal training in abstract writing increases the risk of subjectivity and verbosity and reduces clarity in scientific abstracts. Another implication of the research are that abstracting and indexing services must ensure that they maintain abstract quality if they introduce policies of accepting author abstracts. This is important as there is probably little formal training in abstract writing for science students at present. Recommendations for further research are made. Originality/value - This paper reports a study of the semantic organisation and thematic structure of 12 abstracts from the field of protozoology.

0.008039537 = product of:
  0.016079074 = sum of:
    0.016079074 = product of:
      0.032158148 = sum of:
        0.032158148 = weight(_text_:subject in 3671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032158148 = score(doc=3671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 3671, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The study of information needs has long be acknowlegded as one of the most important factors in the design of information services but has been hampered by the severe problem of designing user studies that will reliably measure them. Reviews the literature of previous research in this field, concluding that time and money are the chief constraints on information seeking behaviour. Describes a new observational technique for identifying the information needs of users and reports results of a small scale experiment to test the methodology. The observational technique involves the researcher being with the subject continuously throughout the day and observing their actions. The behaviour recorded was any action taken in order to answer a question. A small scale study was undertaken of 3 academics from the Psychology Department, University of Strathclyde, using the observational technique. The preferred technique of all the academics was to carry out their own research, followed by consultation with other individuals. One lecturer was a significantly heavier user of electronic media than the other two. The preferred physical locations of the information sources were personal collections and the University Library. One lecturer consistently used a wide range of sources while the other two strongly preferred to use personal contacts. Informal sources were found to be twice as popular as formal sources. A follow up questionnaire survey examined the possibility that previous training in the use of the library could explain the differences in the use of electronic information sources but results were found to be negative. Concludes that the new research tool developed for this type of study is both robust and likely to yield reliable information about user information needs