Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0061293608 = product of:
  0.0122587215 = sum of:
    0.0122587215 = product of:
      0.024517443 = sum of:
        0.024517443 = weight(_text_:h in 1104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024517443 = score(doc=1104,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10526253 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04236856 = queryNorm
            0.2329171 = fieldWeight in 1104, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1104)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.005732661 = product of:
  0.011465322 = sum of:
    0.011465322 = product of:
      0.06879193 = sum of:
        0.06879193 = weight(_text_:authors in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06879193 = score(doc=1196,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19315039 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04236856 = queryNorm
            0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 1196, 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=1196)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The phenomenon of co-corresponding authorship is becoming more and more common. To understand the practice of authorship credit sharing among multiple corresponding authors, we comprehensively analyzed the characteristics of the phenomenon of co-corresponding authorships from the perspectives of countries, disciplines, journals, and articles. This researcher was based on a dataset of nearly 8 million articles indexed in the Web of Science, which provides systematic, cross-disciplinary, and large-scale evidence for understanding the phenomenon of co-corresponding authorship for the first time. Our findings reveal that higher proportions of co-corresponding authorship exist in Asian countries, especially in China. From the perspective of disciplines, there is a relatively higher proportion of co-corresponding authorship in the fields of engineering and medicine, while a lower proportion exists in the humanities, social sciences, and computer science fields. From the perspective of journals, high-quality journals usually have higher proportions of co-corresponding authorship. At the level of the article, our findings proved that, compared to articles with a single corresponding author, articles with multiple corresponding authors have a significant citation advantage.

0.005107801 = product of:
  0.010215602 = sum of:
    0.010215602 = product of:
      0.020431204 = sum of:
        0.020431204 = weight(_text_:h in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020431204 = score(doc=463,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10526253 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04236856 = queryNorm
            0.1940976 = fieldWeight in 463, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.005107801 = product of:
  0.010215602 = sum of:
    0.010215602 = product of:
      0.020431204 = sum of:
        0.020431204 = weight(_text_:h in 567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020431204 = score(doc=567,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10526253 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04236856 = queryNorm
            0.1940976 = fieldWeight in 567, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=567)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0043341126 = product of:
  0.008668225 = sum of:
    0.008668225 = product of:
      0.01733645 = sum of:
        0.01733645 = weight(_text_:h in 455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01733645 = score(doc=455,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10526253 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04236856 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 455, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=455)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.003611761 = product of:
  0.007223522 = sum of:
    0.007223522 = product of:
      0.014447044 = sum of:
        0.014447044 = weight(_text_:h in 847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014447044 = score(doc=847,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10526253 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04236856 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 847, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=847)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study investigates scholars' citation behaviors from a fine-grained perspective. Specifically, each scholarly citation is considered multidimensional rather than logically unidimensional (i.e., present or absent). Thirty million articles from PubMed were accessed for use in empirical research, in which a total of 15 interpretable features of scholarly citations were constructed and grouped into three main categories. Each category corresponds to one aspect of the reasons and motivations behind scholars' citation decision-making during academic writing. Using about 500,000 pairs of actual and randomly generated scholarly citations, a series of Random Forest-based classification experiments were conducted to quantitatively evaluate the correlation between each constructed citation feature and citation decisions made by scholars. Our experimental results indicate that citation proximity is the category most relevant to scholars' citation decision-making, followed by citation authority and citation inertia. However, big-name scholars whose h-indexes rank among the top 1% exhibit a unique pattern of citation behaviors-their citation decision-making correlates most closely with citation inertia, with the correlation nearly three times as strong as that of their ordinary counterparts. Hopefully, the empirical findings presented in this paper can bring us closer to characterizing and understanding the complex process of generating scholarly citations in academia.