Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.017136797 = product of:
  0.034273595 = sum of:
    0.034273595 = product of:
      0.13709438 = sum of:
        0.13709438 = weight(_text_:authors in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13709438 = score(doc=2765,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22449365 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04924387 = queryNorm
            0.61068267 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Beginning with a short review of Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals, we focus on PLOS ONE and more specifically the contributions of Chinese authors to this journal. It is shown that their contribution is growing exponentially. In 2013 almost one fifth of all publications in this journal had at least one Chinese author. The average number of citations per publication is approximately the same for articles with a Chinese author and for articles without any Chinese coauthor. Using the odds-ratio, we could not find arguments that Chinese authors in PLOS ONE excessively cite other Chinese contributions.

0.016679661 = product of:
  0.033359323 = sum of:
    0.033359323 = product of:
      0.066718645 = sum of:
        0.066718645 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.066718645 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17244364 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04924387 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 2.2012 12:53:22

0.011993259 = product of:
  0.023986518 = sum of:
    0.023986518 = product of:
      0.09594607 = sum of:
        0.09594607 = weight(_text_:authors in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09594607 = score(doc=1764,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22449365 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04924387 = queryNorm
            0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 1764, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1764)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to provide a new insight into the reasons why authors cite. Design/methodology/approach The authors argue that, based on philosophical ideas about the essence of things, pure rational thinking about the role of citations leads to the answer. Findings - Citations originate from the interestingness of the investigated phenomenon. The essence of citation lies in the interaction between different ideas or perspectives on a phenomenon addressed in the citing as well as in the cited articles. Research limitations/implications - The findings only apply to ethical (not whimsical or self-serving) citations. As such citations reflect interactions of scientific ideas, they can reveal the evolution of science, revive the cognitive process of an investigated scientific phenomenon and reveal political and economic factors influencing the development of science. Originality/value - This article is the first to propose interestingness and the interaction of ideas as the basic reason for citing. This view on citations allows reverse engineering from citations to ideas and hence becomes useful for science policy.

0.008480515 = product of:
  0.01696103 = sum of:
    0.01696103 = product of:
      0.06784412 = sum of:
        0.06784412 = weight(_text_:authors in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06784412 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22449365 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04924387 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.008480515 = product of:
  0.01696103 = sum of:
    0.01696103 = product of:
      0.06784412 = sum of:
        0.06784412 = weight(_text_:authors in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06784412 = score(doc=297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22449365 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04924387 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 297, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=297)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to introduce a general framework for the analysis of knowledge integration and diffusion using bibliometric data. Design/methodology/approach - The authors propose that in order to characterise knowledge integration and diffusion of a given issue (the source, for example articles on a topic or by an organisation, etc.), one has to choose a set of elements from the source (the intermediary set, for example references, keywords, etc.). This set can then be classified into categories (cats), thus making it possible to investigate its diversity. The set can also be characterised according to the coherence of a network associated to it. Findings - This framework allows a methodology to be developed to assess knowledge integration and diffusion. Such methodologies can be useful for a number of science policy issues, including the assessment of interdisciplinarity in research and dynamics of research networks. Originality/value - The main contribution of this article is to provide a simple and easy to use generalisation of an existing approach to study interdisciplinarity, bringing knowledge integration and knowledge diffusion together in one framework.

0.007067096 = product of:
  0.014134192 = sum of:
    0.014134192 = product of:
      0.056536768 = sum of:
        0.056536768 = weight(_text_:authors in 5226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056536768 = score(doc=5226,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22449365 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04924387 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5226, 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=5226)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Aims to inform researchers about metrics so that they become aware of the evaluative techniques being applied to their scientific output. Understanding these concepts will help them during their funding initiatives, and in hiring and tenure. The book not only describes what indicators do (or are designed to do, which is not always the same thing), but also gives precise mathematical formulae so that indicators can be properly understood and evaluated. Metrics have become a critical issue in science, with widespread international discussion taking place on the subject across scientific journals and organizations. As researchers should know the publication-citation context, the mathematical formulae of indicators being used by evaluating committees and their consequences, and how such indicators might be misused, this book provides an ideal tome on the topic. Provides researchers with a detailed understanding of bibliometric indicators and their applications. Empowers researchers looking to understand the indicators relevant to their work and careers. Presents an informed and rounded picture of bibliometrics, including the strengths and shortcomings of particular indicators. Supplies the mathematics behind bibliometric indicators so they can be properly understood. Written by authors with longstanding expertise who are considered global leaders in the field of bibliometrics