Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0130477995 = product of:
  0.026095599 = sum of:
    0.026095599 = product of:
      0.052191198 = sum of:
        0.052191198 = weight(_text_:p in 1994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052191198 = score(doc=1994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 1994, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010487921 = product of:
  0.020975841 = sum of:
    0.020975841 = product of:
      0.083903365 = sum of:
        0.083903365 = weight(_text_:authors in 2008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083903365 = score(doc=2008,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 2008, 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=2008)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We provide in this article a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author co-citation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors' co-citation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. We show by means of an example that the choice of an appropriate similarity measure has a high practical relevance. Finally, we discuss the use of similarity measures for statistical inference.

0.009319857 = product of:
  0.018639714 = sum of:
    0.018639714 = product of:
      0.037279427 = sum of:
        0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037279427 = score(doc=514,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 514, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=514)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.008989646 = product of:
  0.017979292 = sum of:
    0.017979292 = product of:
      0.07191717 = sum of:
        0.07191717 = weight(_text_:authors in 4112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07191717 = score(doc=4112,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 4112, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4112)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

VOS is a new mapping technique that can serve as an alternative to the well-known technique of multidimensional scaling (MDS). We present an extensive comparison between the use of MDS and the use of VOS for constructing bibliometric maps. In our theoretical analysis, we show the mathematical relation between the two techniques. In our empirical analysis, we use the techniques for constructing maps of authors, journals, and keywords. Two commonly used approaches to bibliometric mapping, both based on MDS, turn out to produce maps that suffer from artifacts. Maps constructed using VOS turn out not to have this problem. We conclude that in general maps constructed using VOS provide a more satisfactory representation of a dataset than maps constructed using well-known MDS approaches.

0.008989646 = product of:
  0.017979292 = sum of:
    0.017979292 = product of:
      0.07191717 = sum of:
        0.07191717 = weight(_text_:authors in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07191717 = score(doc=4214,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We investigated the similarities of pairs of articles that are cocited at the different cocitation levels of the journal, article, section, paragraph, sentence, and bracket. Our results indicate that textual similarity, intellectual overlap (shared references), author overlap (shared authors), proximity in publication time all rise monotonically as the cocitation level gets lower (from journal to bracket). While the main gain in similarity happens when moving from journal to article cocitation, all level changes entail an increase in similarity, especially section to paragraph and paragraph to sentence/bracket levels. We compared the results from four journals over the years 2010-2015: Cell, the European Journal of Operational Research, Physics Letters B, and Research Policy, with consistent general outcomes and some interesting differences. Our findings motivate the use of granular cocitation information as defined by meaningful units of text, with implications for, among others, the elaboration of maps of science and the retrieval of scholarly literature.