-
Stock, W.G.: Wissenschaftsevaluation : die Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Forschung und Lehre (1994)
0.01
0.014418405 = product of:
0.02883681 = sum of:
0.02883681 = product of:
0.05767362 = sum of:
0.05767362 = weight(_text_:m in 242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05767362 = score(doc=242,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.052685954 = queryNorm
0.4398997 = fieldWeight in 242, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=242)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- m
-
Stock, W.G.: Themenanalytische informetrische Methoden (1990)
0.01
0.012616104 = product of:
0.025232209 = sum of:
0.025232209 = product of:
0.050464418 = sum of:
0.050464418 = weight(_text_:m in 5065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050464418 = score(doc=5065,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.052685954 = queryNorm
0.38491225 = fieldWeight in 5065, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5065)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Psychologie und Philosophie der Grazer Schule: eine Dokumentation zu Werk und Wirkungsgeschichte. Hrsg.: M. Stock und W.G. Stock
-
Grazia Colonia; Dimmler, E.; Dresel, R.; Messner, C.; Krobath, A.; Petz, S.; Sypien, M.; Boxen, P. van; Harders, M.; Heuer, D.; Jordans, I.; Juchem, K.; Linnertz, M.; Mittelhuber, I.; Schwammel, S.; Schlögl, C.; Stock, W.G.: Informationswissenschaftliche Zeitschriften in szientometrischer Analyse (2002)
0.01
0.010925867 = product of:
0.021851733 = sum of:
0.021851733 = product of:
0.043703467 = sum of:
0.043703467 = weight(_text_:m in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043703467 = score(doc=1075,freq=6.0), product of:
0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.052685954 = queryNorm
0.3333438 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Stock, W.G.; Schlögl, C.: Practitioners and academics as authors and readers : the case of LIS journals (2008)
0.01
0.008554382 = product of:
0.017108764 = sum of:
0.017108764 = product of:
0.06843506 = sum of:
0.06843506 = weight(_text_:authors in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06843506 = score(doc=2343,freq=4.0), product of:
0.24018547 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052685954 = queryNorm
0.28492588 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics in scholarly communication in library and information science (LIS) journals. Design/methodology/approach - The research is based on a reader survey, a citation analysis and an editor survey. The reader survey identifies both differences in journal rankings between practitioners and academics and the contribution of practitioners to LIS journals. The editor survey provides the proportions of practitioners and academics for the journals. The citation analysis shows the disparities in information exchange between the journals mainly preferred by practitioners and those more favoured by academics. Furthermore, it is possible to explore if practitioner journals differ from academic journals in the citation indicators and in other data collected in the editor survey. Findings - It is found that: practitioners play an active role both as readers and as authors of articles in LIS journals; there is only a low level of information exchange between practitioner and academic journals; the placement of advertisements, the size of the editorial board, requirements concerning an extensive bibliography, the number and the half-life of the references show a clear distinction between practitioner and academic journals. Interestingly, the impact factor did not turn out to be a good indicator to differentiate a practitioner from an academic journal. Research limitations/implications - This research is only exploratory because it is based on separate studies previously conducted. Further research is also needed to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics more deeply. Originality/value - The value of this paper lies in bringing together the findings from complementary studies (reader survey, editor survey and citation analysis) and identifying hypotheses for future research, especially with regards to the roles of and interactions between LIS practitioners and academics in scholarly communication.
-
Stock, W.G.; Weber, S.: Facets of informetrics : Preface (2006)
0.00
0.0036046011 = product of:
0.0072092023 = sum of:
0.0072092023 = product of:
0.014418405 = sum of:
0.014418405 = weight(_text_:m in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014418405 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.052685954 = queryNorm
0.10997493 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- According to Jean M. Tague-Sutcliffe "informetrics" is "the study of the quantitative aspects of information in any form, not just records or bibliographies, and in any social group, not just scientists" (Tague-Sutcliffe, 1992, 1). Leo Egghe also defines "informetrics" in a very broad sense. "(W)e will use the term' informetrics' as the broad term comprising all-metrics studies related to information science, including bibliometrics (bibliographies, libraries,...), scientometrics (science policy, citation analysis, research evaluation,...), webometrics (metrics of the web, the Internet or other social networks such as citation or collaboration networks), ..." (Egghe, 2005b,1311). According to Concepcion S. Wilson "informetrics" is "the quantitative study of collections of moderatesized units of potentially informative text, directed to the scientific understanding of information processes at the social level" (Wilson, 1999, 211). We should add to Wilson's units of text also digital collections of images, videos, spoken documents and music. Dietmar Wolfram divides "informetrics" into two aspects, "system-based characteristics that arise from the documentary content of IR systems and how they are indexed, and usage-based characteristics that arise how users interact with system content and the system interfaces that provide access to the content" (Wolfram, 2003, 6). We would like to follow Tague-Sutcliffe, Egghe, Wilson and Wolfram (and others, for example Björneborn & Ingwersen, 2004) and call this broad research of empirical information science "informetrics". Informetrics includes therefore all quantitative studies in information science. If a scientist performs scientific investigations empirically, e.g. on information users' behavior, on scientific impact of academic journals, on the development of the patent application activity of a company, on links of Web pages, on the temporal distribution of blog postings discussing a given topic, on availability, recall and precision of retrieval systems, on usability of Web sites, and so on, he or she contributes to informetrics. We see three subject areas in information science in which such quantitative research takes place, - information users and information usage, - evaluation of information systems, - information itself, Following Wolfram's article, we divide his system-based characteristics into the "information itself "-category and the "information system"-category. Figure 1 is a simplistic graph of subjects and research areas of informetrics as an empirical information science.
