Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Schloegl, C."
  1. Schloegl, C.; Stock, W.G.: Impact and relevance of LIS journals : a scientometric analysis of international and German-language LIS journals - Citation analysis versus reader survey (2004) 0.00 
    0.0022438213 = product of:
  0.0044876426 = sum of:
    0.0044876426 = product of:
      0.008975285 = sum of:
        0.008975285 = weight(_text_:a in 5249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008975285 = score(doc=5249,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.16900843 = fieldWeight in 5249, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The goal of the scientometric analysis presented in this article was to investigate international and regional (i.e., German-language) periodicals in the field of library and information science (LIS). This was done by means of a citation analysis and a reader survey. For the citation analysis, impact factor, citing half-life, number of references per article, and the rate of self-references of a periodical were used as indicators. In addition, the leading LIS periodicals were mapped. For the 40 international periodicals, data were collected from ISI's Social Sciences Citation Index Journal Citation Reports (JCR); the citations of the 10 German-language journals were counted manually (overall 1,494 source articles with 10,520 citations). Altogether, the empirical base of the citation analysis consisted of nearly 90,000 citations in 6,203 source articles that were published between 1997 and 2000. The expert survey investigated reading frequency, applicability of the journals to the job of the reader, publication frequency, and publication preference both for all respondents and for different groups among them (practitioners vs. scientists, librarians vs. documentalists vs. LIS scholars, public sector vs. information industry vs. other private company employees). The study was conducted in spring 2002. A total of 257 questionnaires were returned by information specialists from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Having both citation and readership data, we performed a comparative analysis of these two data sets. This enabled us to identify answers to questions like: Does reading behavior correlate with the journal impact factor? Do readers prefer journals with a short or a long half-life, or with a low or a high number of references? Is there any difference in this matter among librarians, documentalists, and LIS scholars?
    Type
    a
  2. Hayes, R.M.; Karlics, K.; Schloegl, C.: University libraries as a model for the determination of the need for information specialists in knowledge industries? : an exploratory analysis of the information sector in Austria (2013) 0.00 
    0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 2709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=2709,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2709, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2709)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In our paper we present an experimental study which investigated the possibility to project the need for information specialists serving knowledge workers in knowledge industries on the basis of an average university library serving their counterparts at a university. Information management functions, i.e. functions and processes related to information evaluation, acquisition, metadata creation, etc., performed in an average university library are the starting point of this investigation. The fundamental assumption is that these functions do not only occur in libraries but also in other contexts like, for instance, in knowledge industries. As a consequence, we try to estimate the need for information professionals in knowledge industries by means of quantitative methods from library and information science (Library Planning Model) and economics (input output analysis, occupational analysis). Our study confirms the validity of our assumption. Accordingly, the number of information specialists projected on the basis of university libraries is consistent with their actual number reported in national statistics. However, in order to attain a close fit, we had to revise the original research model by dismissing the split-up of information specialists into reader services and technical services staff.
    Location
    A
    Type
    a
  3. Schloegl, C.; Gorraiz, J.: Global usage versus global citation metrics : the case of pharmacology journals (2011) 0.00 
    0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 4141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=4141,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 4141, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4141)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Following the transition from print journals to electronic (hybrid) journals in the past decade, usage metrics have become an interesting complement to citation metrics. In this article we investigate the similarities of and differences between usage and citation indicators for pharmacy and pharmacology journals and relate the results to a previous study on oncology journals. For the comparison at journal level we use the classical citation indicators as defined in the Journal Citation Reports and compute the corresponding usage indicators. At the article level we not only relate download and citation counts to each other but also try to identify the possible effect of citations upon subsequent downloads. Usage data were provided by ScienceDirect both at the journal level and, for a few selected journals, on a paper-by-paper basis. The corresponding citation data were retrieved from the Web of Science and Journal Citation Reports. Our analyses show that electronic journals have become generally accepted over the last decade. While the supply of ScienceDirect pharma journals rose by 50% between 2001 and 2006, the total number of article downloads (full-text articles [FTAs]) multiplied more than 5-fold in the same period. This also impacted the pattern of scholarly communication (strong increase in the immediacy index) in the past few years. Our results further reveal a close relation between citation and download frequencies. We computed a high correlation at the journal level when using absolute values and a moderate to high correlation when relating usage and citation impact factors. At the article level the rank correlation between downloads and citations was only medium-sized. Differences between downloads and citations exist in terms of obsolescence characteristics. While more than half of the articles are downloaded in the publication year or 1 year later, the median cited half-life was nearly 6 years for our journal sample. Our attempt to reveal a direct influence of citations upon downloads proved not to be feasible.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years