-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.06
0.05876667 = sum of:
0.027241426 = product of:
0.1089657 = sum of:
0.1089657 = weight(_text_:authors in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1089657 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
0.2418733 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.45050737 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.031525247 = sum of:
0.002771724 = weight(_text_:s in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.002771724 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.028753523 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028753523 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18579373 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
- Abstract
- Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
- Date
- 9. 7.2006 10:22:35
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.6, S.549-568
-
Rousseau, R.; Zuccala, A.: ¬A classification of author co-citations : definitions and search strategies (2004)
0.02
0.016960748 = sum of:
0.01522842 = product of:
0.06091368 = sum of:
0.06091368 = weight(_text_:authors in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06091368 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2418733 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2266, 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=2266)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.0017323275 = product of:
0.003464655 = sum of:
0.003464655 = weight(_text_:s in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003464655 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The term author co-citation is defined and classified according to four distinct forms: the pure first-author co-citation, the pure author co-citation, the general author co-citation, and the special co-authorlco-citation. Each form can be used to obtain one count in an author co-citation study, based an a binary counting rule, which either recognizes the co-citedness of two authors in a given reference list (1) or does not (0). Most studies using author co-citations have relied solely an first-author cocitation counts as evidence of an author's oeuvre or body of work contributed to a research field. In this article, we argue that an author's contribution to a selected field of study should not be limited, but should be based an his/her complete list of publications, regardless of author ranking. We discuss the implications associated with using each co-citation form and show where simple first-author co-citations fit within our classification scheme. Examples are given to substantiate each author co-citation form defined in our classification, including a set of sample Dialog(TM) searches using references extracted from the SciSearch database.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.6, S.513-529
-
Rousseau, R.: Timelines in citation research (2006)
0.00
0.001385862 = product of:
0.002771724 = sum of:
0.002771724 = product of:
0.005543448 = sum of:
0.005543448 = weight(_text_:s in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005543448 = score(doc=1746,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 1746, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1746)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.10, S.1404-1405
-
Frandsen, T.F.; Rousseau, R.: Article impact calculated over arbitrary periods (2005)
0.00
0.0010393964 = product of:
0.0020787928 = sum of:
0.0020787928 = product of:
0.0041575856 = sum of:
0.0041575856 = weight(_text_:s in 3264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0041575856 = score(doc=3264,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 3264, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3264)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.1, S.58-62
-
Hu, X.; Rousseau, R.: Do citation chimeras exist? : The case of under-cited influential articles suffering delayed recognition (2019)
0.00
0.0010393964 = product of:
0.0020787928 = sum of:
0.0020787928 = product of:
0.0041575856 = sum of:
0.0041575856 = weight(_text_:s in 5217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0041575856 = score(doc=5217,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 5217, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5217)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.5, S.499-508
