Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010151949 = product of:
  0.07106364 = sum of:
    0.07106364 = weight(_text_:networks in 1505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07106364 = score(doc=1505,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19231078 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.369525 = fieldWeight in 1505, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1505)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

International coauthorship relations have increasingly shaped another dynamic in the natural and life sciences during recent decades. However, much less is known about such internationalization in the social sciences. In this study, we analyze international and domestic coauthorship relations of all citable items in the DVD version of the Social Sciences Citation Index 2011 (SSCI). Network statistics indicate 4 groups of nations: (a) an Asian-Pacific one to which all Anglo-Saxon nations (including the United Kingdom and Ireland) are attributed, (b) a continental European one including also the Latin-American countries, (c) the Scandinavian nations, and (d) a community of African nations. Within the EU-28, 11 of the EU-15 states have dominant positions. In many respects, the network parameters are not so different from the Science Citation Index. In addition to these descriptive statistics, we address the question of the relative weights of the international versus domestic networks. An information-theoretical test is proposed at the level of organizational addresses within each nation; the results are mixed, but the international dimension is more important than the national one in the aggregated sets (as in the Science Citation Index). In some countries (e.g., France), however, the national distribution is leading more than the international one. Decomposition of the United States in terms of states shows a similarly mixed result; more U.S. states are domestically oriented in the SSCI and more internationally in the SCI. The international networks have grown during the last decades in addition to the national ones but not by replacing them.

0.007178512 = product of:
  0.05024958 = sum of:
    0.05024958 = weight(_text_:networks in 2045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05024958 = score(doc=2045,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19231078 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 2045, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2045)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Much of the recent research on user contributions to electronic networks has focused on attracting and motivating participations. We, instead, investigate online community defections,1 their cause, and their impact through an empirical investigation of defections from Wikipedia. Our research uses justice theory to determine the effects of injustice perceptions on contributor defections and draws on fairness heuristic theory to distinguish the relative effects of distributive injustice and procedural injustice. The results show that perceptions of injustice concerning collaboration outcomes ("distributive injustice") raise contributor dissatisfaction, which in turn leads to defection. Perceptions of injustice concerning the process ("procedural injustice"), by comparison, have a direct impact on defections and exert a stronger influence on dissatisfaction than distributive injustice. Justice emerges as a hygiene factor adding to the level of dissatisfaction among dissatisfied contributors but not among satisfied contributors. The findings contribute to our understanding of collaborative knowledge creation by drawing attention to contributors' post hoc passive emotions and behaviors instead of predominantly investigating their initial prosharing behaviors. The work also has practical implications for community governance because it suggests how to sustain communities in the long term.

0.007178512 = product of:
  0.05024958 = sum of:
    0.05024958 = weight(_text_:networks in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05024958 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19231078 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are notable for their increasing participation in science and technology. The governments of these countries have been boosting their investments in research and development to become part of the group of nations doing research at a world-class level. This study investigates the development of the BRICS countries in the domain of top-cited papers (top 10% and 1% most frequently cited papers) between 1990 and 2010. To assess the extent to which these countries have become important players at the top level, we compare the BRICS countries with the top-performing countries worldwide. As the analyses of the (annual) growth rates show, with the exception of Russia, the BRICS countries have increased their output in terms of most frequently cited papers at a higher rate than the top-cited countries worldwide. By way of additional analysis, we generate coauthorship networks among authors of highly cited papers for 4 time points to view changes in BRICS participation (1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010). Here, the results show that all BRICS countries succeeded in becoming part of this network, whereby the Chinese collaboration activities focus on the US.