Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0049890443 = product of:
  0.03741783 = sum of:
    0.032484557 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032484557 = score(doc=1259,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
    0.0049332716 = product of:
      0.009866543 = sum of:
        0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009866543 = score(doc=1259,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Abstract

This study continues a long history of author cocitation analysis (and more recently, author bibliographic coupling analysis) of the intellectual structure of information science (IS) into the time period 2006 to 2010 (IS 2006-2010). We find that web technologies continue to drive developments, especially at the research front, although perhaps more indirectly than before. A broadening of perspectives is visible in IS 2006-2010, where network science becomes influential and where full-text analysis methods complement traditional computer science influences. Research in the areas of the h-index and mapping of science appears to have been highlights of IS 2006-2011. This study tests and confirms a forecast made previously by comparing knowledge-base and research-front findings for IS 2001-2005, which expected both the information retrieval (IR) systems and webometrics specialties to shrink in 2006 to 2010. A corresponding comparison of the knowledge base and research front of IS 2006-2010 suggests a continuing decline of the IR systems specialty in the near future, but also a considerable (re)growth of the webometrics area after a period of decline from 2001 to 2005 and 2006 to 2010, with the latter due perhaps in part to its contribution to an emerging web science.

Field

Informationswissenschaft

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.995-1006

2.79068E-4 = product of:
  0.0041860198 = sum of:
    0.0041860198 = product of:
      0.0083720395 = sum of:
        0.0083720395 = weight(_text_:information in 2774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0083720395 = score(doc=2774,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2774, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2774)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

In-text frequency-weighted citation counting has been seen as a particularly promising solution to the well-known problem of citation analysis that it treats all citations equally, be they crucial to the citing paper or perfunctory. But what is a good weighting scheme? We compare 12 different in-text citation frequency-weighting schemes in the field of library and information science (LIS) and explore author citation impact patterns based on their performance in these schemes. Our results show that the ranks of authors vary widely with different weighting schemes that favor or are biased against common citation impact patterns-substantiated, applied, or noted. These variations separate LIS authors quite clearly into groups with these impact patterns. With consensus rank limits, the hard upper and lower bounds for reasonable author ranks that they provide suggest that author citation ranks may be subject to something like an uncertainty principle.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.671-682

2.79068E-4 = product of:
  0.0041860198 = sum of:
    0.0041860198 = product of:
      0.0083720395 = sum of:
        0.0083720395 = weight(_text_:information in 4347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0083720395 = score(doc=4347,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4347, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Author self-citations were examined as to their function, frequency, and location in the full text of research articles and compared with external citations. Function analysis was based on manual coding of a small dataset in the field of library and information studies, whereas the analyses by frequency and location used both this small dataset and a large dataset from PubMed Central. Strong evidence was found that self-citations appear more likely to serve as substantial citations in a text than do external citations. This finding challenges previous studies that assumed that self-citations should be discounted or even removed and suggests that self-citations should be given more weight in citation analysis, if anything.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.7, S.949-952

2.3255666E-4 = product of:
  0.0034883497 = sum of:
    0.0034883497 = product of:
      0.0069766995 = sum of:
        0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069766995 = score(doc=389,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 389, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=389)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

In this article, we explore how strongly author name disambiguation (AND) affects the results of an author-based citation analysis study, and identify conditions under which the traditional simplified approach of using surnames and first initials may suffice in practice. We compare author citation ranking and cocitation mapping results in the stem cell research field from 2004 to 2009 using two AND approaches: the traditional simplified approach of using author surname and first initial and a sophisticated algorithmic approach. We find that the traditional approach leads to extremely distorted rankings and substantially distorted mappings of authors in this field when based on first- or all-author citation counting, whereas last-author-based citation ranking and cocitation mapping both appear relatively immune to the author name ambiguity problem. This is largely because Romanized names of Chinese and Korean authors, who are very active in this field, are extremely ambiguous, but few of these researchers consistently publish as last authors in bylines. We conclude that a more earnest effort is required to deal with the author name ambiguity problem in both citation analysis and information retrieval, especially given the current trend toward globalization. In the stem cell research field, in which laboratory heads are traditionally listed as last authors in bylines, last-author-based citation ranking and cocitation mapping using the traditional approach to author name disambiguation may serve as a simple workaround, but likely at the price of largely filtering out Chinese and Korean contributions to the field as well as important contributions by young researchers.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.9, S.1820-1833

1.9733087E-4 = product of:
  0.002959963 = sum of:
    0.002959963 = product of:
      0.005919926 = sum of:
        0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 1535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005919926 = score(doc=1535,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1535, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1535)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.11, S.2348-2358

1.6444239E-4 = product of:
  0.0024666358 = sum of:
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.4, S.654-676