Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.014090467 = product of:
  0.0422714 = sum of:
    0.0422714 = product of:
      0.0845428 = sum of:
        0.0845428 = weight(_text_:conference in 3298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0845428 = score(doc=3298,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.4353755 = fieldWeight in 3298, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3298)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study uses citations, from 1996 to 2007, to the work of 80 randomly selected full-time, information studies (IS) faculty members from North America to examine differences between Scopus and Web of Science in assessing the scholarly impact of the field focusing on the most frequently citing journals, conference proceedings, research domains and institutions, as well as all citing countries. Results show that when assessment is limited to smaller citing entities (e.g., journals, conference proceedings, institutions), the two databases produce considerably different results, whereas when assessment is limited to larger citing entities (e.g., research domains, countries), the two databases produce very similar pictures of scholarly impact. In the former case, the use of Scopus (for journals and institutions) and both Scopus and Web of Science (for conference proceedings) is necessary to more accurately assess or visualize the scholarly impact of IS, whereas in the latter case, assessing or visualizing the scholarly impact of IS is independent of the database used.

0.008628707 = product of:
  0.025886122 = sum of:
    0.025886122 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025886122 = score(doc=4143,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This work identifies changes in dominant topics in library and information science (LIS) over time, by analyzing the 3,121 doctoral dissertations completed between 1930 and 2009 at North American Library and Information Science programs. The authors utilize latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) to identify latent topics diachronically and to identify representative dissertations of those topics. The findings indicate that the main topics in LIS have changed substantially from those in the initial period (1930-1969) to the present (2000-2009). However, some themes occurred in multiple periods, representing core areas of the field: library history occurred in the first two periods; citation analysis in the second and third periods; and information-seeking behavior in the fourth and last period. Two topics occurred in three of the five periods: information retrieval and information use. One of the notable changes in the topics was the diminishing use of the word library (and related terms). This has implications for the provision of doctoral education in LIS. This work is compared to other earlier analyses and provides validation for the use of LDA in topic analysis of a discipline.

0.008135135 = product of:
  0.024405405 = sum of:
    0.024405405 = product of:
      0.04881081 = sum of:
        0.04881081 = weight(_text_:conference in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04881081 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.25136417 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article compares doctoral students' and faculty members' referencing behavior through the analysis of a large corpus of scientific articles. It shows that doctoral students tend to cite more documents per article than faculty members, and that the literature they cite is, on average, more recent. It also demonstrates that doctoral students cite a larger proportion of conference proceedings and journal articles than faculty members and faculty members are more likely to self-cite and cite theses than doctoral students. Analysis of the impact of cited journals indicates that in health research, faculty members tend to cite journals with slightly lower impact factors whereas in social sciences and humanities, faculty members cite journals with higher impact factors. Finally, it provides evidence that, in every discipline, faculty members tend to cite a higher proportion of clinical/applied research journals than doctoral students. This study contributes to the understanding of referencing patterns and age stratification in academia. Implications for understanding the information-seeking behavior of academics are discussed.