Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Small, H."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Zitt, M.; Small, H.: Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting : the audience factor (2008) 0.00 
    0.0030444188 = product of:
  0.0060888375 = sum of:
    0.0060888375 = product of:
      0.012177675 = sum of:
        0.012177675 = weight(_text_:a in 2363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012177675 = score(doc=2363,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 2363, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2363)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A new approach to the field normalization of the classical journal impact factor is introduced. This approach, called the audience factor, takes into consideration the citing propensity of journals for a given cited journal, specifically, the mean number of references of each citing journal, and fractionally weights the citations from those citing journals. Hence, the audience factor is a variant of a fractional citation-counting scheme, but computed on the citing journal rather than the citing article or disciplinary level, and, in contrast to other cited-side normalization strategies, is focused on the behavior of the citing entities. A comparison with standard journal impact factors from Thomson Reuters shows a more diverse representation of fields within various quintiles of impact, significant movement in rankings for a number of individual journals, but nevertheless a high overall correlation with standard impact factors.
    Type
    a
  2. Small, H.: Paradigms, citations, and maps of science : a personal history (2003) 0.00 
    0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 1456) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=1456,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1456, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1456)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Can maps of science tell us anything about paradigms? The author reviews his earlier work an this question, including Kuhn's reaction to it. Kuhn's view of the role of bibliometrics differs substantially from the kinds of reinterpretations of paradigms that information scientists are currently advocating. But these reinterpretations are necessary if his theory will ever be empirically tested, and further progress is to be made in understanding the growth of scientific knowledge. A new Web tool is discussed that highlights rapidly changing specialties that may lead to new ways of monitoring revolutionary change in real time. It is suggested that revolutionary and normal science be seen as extremes an a continuum of rates of change rather than, as Kuhn originally asserted, as an all or none proposition.
    Type
    a