Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Sugimoto, C.R."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Milojevic, S.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: ¬The cognitive structure of Library and Information Science : analysis of article title words (2011) 0.01 
    0.009504269 = product of:
  0.019008538 = sum of:
    0.019008538 = product of:
      0.038017076 = sum of:
        0.038017076 = weight(_text_:c in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038017076 = score(doc=4608,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14107318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.2694848 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study comprises a suite of analyses of words in article titles in order to reveal the cognitive structure of Library and Information Science (LIS). The use of title words to elucidate the cognitive structure of LIS has been relatively neglected. The present study addresses this gap by performing (a) co-word analysis and hierarchical clustering, (b) multidimensional scaling, and (c) determination of trends in usage of terms. The study is based on 10,344 articles published between 1988 and 2007 in 16 LIS journals. Methodologically, novel aspects of this study are: (a) its large scale, (b) removal of non-specific title words based on the "word concentration" measure (c) identification of the most frequent terms that include both single words and phrases, and (d) presentation of the relative frequencies of terms using "heatmaps". Conceptually, our analysis reveals that LIS consists of three main branches: the traditionally recognized library-related and information-related branches, plus an equally distinct bibliometrics/scientometrics branch. The three branches focus on: libraries, information, and science, respectively. In addition, our study identifies substructures within each branch. We also tentatively identify "information seeking behavior" as a branch that is establishing itself separate from the three main branches. Furthermore, we find that cognitive concepts in LIS evolve continuously, with no stasis since 1992. The most rapid development occurred between 1998 and 2001, influenced by the increased focus on the Internet. The change in the cognitive landscape is found to be driven by the emergence of new information technologies, and the retirement of old ones.
  2. Larivière, V.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Macaluso, B.; Milojevi´c, S.; Cronin, B.; Thelwall, M.: arXiv E-prints and the journal of record : an analysis of roles and relationships (2014) 0.01 
    0.009504269 = product of:
  0.019008538 = sum of:
    0.019008538 = product of:
      0.038017076 = sum of:
        0.038017076 = weight(_text_:c in 1285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038017076 = score(doc=1285,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14107318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.2694848 = fieldWeight in 1285, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Since its creation in 1991, arXiv has become central to the diffusion of research in a number of fields. Combining data from the entirety of arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS), this article investigates (a) the proportion of papers across all disciplines that are on arXiv and the proportion of arXiv papers that are in the WoS, (b) the elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication, and (c) the aging characteristics and scientific impact of arXiv e-prints and their published version. It shows that the proportion of WoS papers found on arXiv varies across the specialties of physics and mathematics, and that only a few specialties make extensive use of the repository. Elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication has shortened but remains longer in mathematics than in physics. In physics, mathematics, as well as in astronomy and astrophysics, arXiv versions are cited more promptly and decay faster than WoS papers. The arXiv versions of papers-both published and unpublished-have lower citation rates than published papers, although there is almost no difference in the impact of the arXiv versions of published and unpublished papers.
  3. Sugimoto, C.R.; Ni, C.; Russell, T.G.; Bychowski, B.: Academic genealogy as an indicator of interdisciplinarity : an examination of dissertation networks in Library and Information Science (2011) 0.01 
    0.00806464 = product of:
  0.01612928 = sum of:
    0.01612928 = product of:
      0.03225856 = sum of:
        0.03225856 = weight(_text_:c in 4756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03225856 = score(doc=4756,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14107318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 4756, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4756)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  4. Larivière, V.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Cronin, B.: ¬A bibliometric chronicling of library and information science's first hundred years (2012) 0.01 
    0.0067773275 = product of:
  0.013554655 = sum of:
    0.013554655 = product of:
      0.08132793 = sum of:
        0.08132793 = weight(_text_:authors in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08132793 = score(doc=244,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1864456 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = 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)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  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.
  5. Ni, C.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Jiang, J.: Venue-author-coupling : a measure for identifying disciplines through author communities (2013) 0.01 
    0.006720532 = product of:
  0.013441064 = sum of:
    0.013441064 = product of:
      0.026882129 = sum of:
        0.026882129 = weight(_text_:c in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026882129 = score(doc=607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14107318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  6. Yan, E.; Ding, Y.; Sugimoto, C.R.: P-Rank: an indicator measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks (2011) 0.01 
    0.006640397 = product of:
  0.013280794 = sum of:
    0.013280794 = product of:
      0.079684764 = sum of:
        0.079684764 = weight(_text_:authors in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079684764 = score(doc=4349,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1864456 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = 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)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  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.
  7. Gazni, A.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Didegah, F.: Mapping world scientific collaboration : authors, institutions, and countries (2012) 0.01 
    0.006640397 = product of:
  0.013280794 = sum of:
    0.013280794 = product of:
      0.079684764 = sum of:
        0.079684764 = weight(_text_:authors in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079684764 = score(doc=1141,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1864456 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = 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)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  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.
  8. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Tsou, A.: Team size matters : collaboration and scientific impact since 1900 (2015) 0.01 
    0.006640397 = product of:
  0.013280794 = sum of:
    0.013280794 = product of:
      0.079684764 = sum of:
        0.079684764 = weight(_text_:authors in 2035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079684764 = score(doc=2035,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1864456 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = 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)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  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.
  9. Kelly, D.; Sugimoto, C.R.: ¬A systematic review of interactive information retrieval evaluation studies, 1967-2006 (2013) 0.01 
    0.0055336645 = product of:
  0.011067329 = sum of:
    0.011067329 = product of:
      0.06640397 = sum of:
        0.06640397 = weight(_text_:authors in 684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06640397 = score(doc=684,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1864456 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = 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)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  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.
  10. Sugimoto, C.R.; Cronin, B.: Biobibliometric profiling : an examination of multifaceted approaches to scholarship (2012) 0.01 
    0.0054780478 = product of:
  0.0109560955 = sum of:
    0.0109560955 = product of:
      0.06573657 = sum of:
        0.06573657 = weight(_text_:authors in 4991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06573657 = score(doc=4991,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1864456 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = 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)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  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.
  11. Sugimoto, C.R.; Li, D.; Russell, T.G.; Finlay, S.C.; Ding, Y.: ¬The shifting sands of disciplinary development : analyzing North American Library and Information Science dissertations using latent Dirichlet allocation (2011) 0.00 
    0.0039128913 = product of:
  0.0078257825 = sum of:
    0.0078257825 = product of:
      0.046954695 = sum of:
        0.046954695 = weight(_text_:authors in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046954695 = score(doc=4143,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1864456 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = 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)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  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.

Authors

Themes