Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.066807866 = sum of:
  0.025935514 = product of:
    0.103742056 = sum of:
      0.103742056 = weight(_text_:authors in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.103742056 = score(doc=4349,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24273461 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053245123 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.04087235 = product of:
    0.0817447 = sum of:
      0.0817447 = weight(_text_:y in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0817447 = score(doc=4349,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25623685 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053245123 = queryNorm
          0.3190201 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ranking scientific productivity and prestige are often limited to homogeneous networks. These networks are unable to account for the multiple factors that constitute the scholarly communication and reward system. This study proposes a new informetric indicator, P-Rank, for measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks containing articles, authors, and journals. P-Rank differentiates the weight of each citation based on its citing papers, citing journals, and citing authors. Articles from 16 representative library and information science journals are selected as the dataset. Principle Component Analysis is conducted to examine the relationship between P-Rank and other bibliometric indicators. We also compare the correlation and rank variances between citation counts and P-Rank scores. This work provides a new approach to examining prestige in scholarly communication networks in a more comprehensive and nuanced way.

0.066807866 = sum of:
  0.025935514 = product of:
    0.103742056 = sum of:
      0.103742056 = weight(_text_:authors in 2035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.103742056 = score(doc=2035,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24273461 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053245123 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 2035, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2035)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.04087235 = product of:
    0.0817447 = sum of:
      0.0817447 = weight(_text_:y in 2035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0817447 = score(doc=2035,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25623685 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053245123 = queryNorm
          0.3190201 = fieldWeight in 2035, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2035)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article provides the first historical analysis of the relationship between collaboration and scientific impact using three indicators of collaboration (number of authors, number of addresses, and number of countries) derived from articles published between 1900 and 2011. The results demonstrate that an increase in the number of authors leads to an increase in impact, from the beginning of the last century onward, and that this is not due simply to self-citations. A similar trend is also observed for the number of addresses and number of countries represented in the byline of an article. However, the constant inflation of collaboration since 1900 has resulted in diminishing citation returns: Larger and more diverse (in terms of institutional and country affiliation) teams are necessary to realize higher impact. The article concludes with a discussion of the potential causes of the impact gain in citations of collaborative papers.

0.04934294 = sum of:
  0.015282649 = product of:
    0.061130594 = sum of:
      0.061130594 = weight(_text_:authors in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.061130594 = score(doc=4143,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24273461 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053245123 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.034060292 = product of:
    0.068120584 = sum of:
      0.068120584 = weight(_text_:y in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.068120584 = score(doc=4143,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25623685 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053245123 = queryNorm
          0.26585007 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.017030146 = product of:
  0.034060292 = sum of:
    0.034060292 = product of:
      0.068120584 = sum of:
        0.068120584 = weight(_text_:y in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068120584 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25623685 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053245123 = queryNorm
            0.26585007 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.013235163 = product of:
  0.026470326 = sum of:
    0.026470326 = product of:
      0.1058813 = sum of:
        0.1058813 = weight(_text_:authors in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1058813 = score(doc=244,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24273461 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053245123 = queryNorm
            0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.

0.012967757 = product of:
  0.025935514 = sum of:
    0.025935514 = product of:
      0.103742056 = sum of:
        0.103742056 = weight(_text_:authors in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.103742056 = score(doc=1141,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24273461 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053245123 = queryNorm
            0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 1141, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1141)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

International collaboration is being heralded as the hallmark of contemporary scientific production. Yet little quantitative evidence has portrayed the landscape and trends of such collaboration. To this end, 14,000,000 documents indexed in Thomson Reuters's Web of Science (WoS) were studied to provide a state-of-the-art description of scientific collaborations across the world. The results indicate that the number of authors in the largest research teams have not significantly grown during the past decade; however, the number of smaller research teams has seen significant increases in growth. In terms of composition, the largest teams have become more diverse than the latter teams and tend more toward interinstitutional and international collaboration. Investigating the size of teams showed large variation between fields. Mapping scientific cooperation at the country level reveals that Western countries situated at the core of the map are extensively cooperating with each other. High-impact institutions are significantly more collaborative than others. This work should inform policy makers, administrators, and those interested in the progression of scientific collaboration.

0.010806465 = product of:
  0.02161293 = sum of:
    0.02161293 = product of:
      0.08645172 = sum of:
        0.08645172 = weight(_text_:authors in 684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08645172 = score(doc=684,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24273461 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053245123 = queryNorm
            0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 684, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=684)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the increasing number and diversity of search tools available, interest in the evaluation of search systems, particularly from a user perspective, has grown among researchers. More researchers are designing and evaluating interactive information retrieval (IIR) systems and beginning to innovate in evaluation methods. Maturation of a research specialty relies on the ability to replicate research, provide standards for measurement and analysis, and understand past endeavors. This article presents a historical overview of 40 years of IIR evaluation studies using the method of systematic review. A total of 2,791 journal and conference units were manually examined and 127 articles were selected for analysis in this study, based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. These articles were systematically coded using features such as author, publication date, sources and references, and properties of the research method used in the articles, such as number of subjects, tasks, corpora, and measures. Results include data describing the growth of IIR studies over time, the most frequently occurring and cited authors and sources, and the most common types of corpora and measures used. An additional product of this research is a bibliography of IIR evaluation research that can be used by students, teachers, and those new to the area. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first historical, systematic characterization of the IIR evaluation literature, including the documentation of methods and measures used by researchers in this specialty.

0.010697854 = product of:
  0.021395708 = sum of:
    0.021395708 = product of:
      0.08558283 = sum of:
        0.08558283 = weight(_text_:authors in 4991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08558283 = score(doc=4991,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24273461 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053245123 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 4991, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4991)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We conducted a fine-grained prosopography of six distinguished information scientists to explore commonalities and differences in their approaches to scholarly production at different stages of their careers. Specifically, we gathered data on authors' genre preferences, rates and modes of scholarly production, and coauthorship patterns. We also explored the role played by gender and place in determining mentoring and collaboration practices across time. Our biobibliometric profiles of the sextet reveal the different shapes a scholar's career can take. We consider the implications of our findings for new entrants into the academic marketplace.