Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0025173177 = product of:
  0.017621223 = sum of:
    0.013444485 = weight(_text_:system in 5409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013444485 = score(doc=5409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 5409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5409)
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 5409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=5409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5409)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The cognitive and social structures, and publication practices, of the humanities have been studied bibliometrically for the past 50 years. This article explores the conceptual frameworks, methods, and data sources used in bibliometrics to study the nature of the humanities, and its differences and similarities in comparison with other scientific domains. We give a historical overview of bibliometric scholarship between 1965 and 2018 that studies the humanities empirically and distinguishes between two periods in which the configuration of the bibliometric system differs remarkably. The first period, 1965 to the 1980s, is characterized by bibliometric methods embedded in a sociological theoretical framework, the development and use of the Price Index, and small samples of journal publications from which references are used as data sources. The second period, the 1980s to the present day, is characterized by a new intellectual hinterland-that of science policy and research evaluation-in which bibliometric methods become embedded. Here metadata of publications becomes the primary data source with which publication profiles of humanistic scholarly communities are analyzed. We unpack the differences between these two periods and critically discuss the analytical avenues that different approaches offer.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.10, S.1124-1137

0.0017838344 = product of:
  0.012486841 = sum of:
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
    0.008310104 = product of:
      0.016620208 = sum of:
        0.016620208 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016620208 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.3, S.260 - 288

0.0015365126 = product of:
  0.021511177 = sum of:
    0.021511177 = weight(_text_:system in 1023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021511177 = score(doc=1023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 1023, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1023)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Since the 'Science Citation Index' emerged within the system of scientific communication in 1964, an intense controversy about its character has been raging: in what sense can citation analysis be trusted? This debate can be characterized as the confrontation of different perspectives on science. Discusses the citation representation of science: the way the citation creates a new reality of as well as in the world of science; the main features of this reality; and some implications for science and science policy

0.0013444485 = product of:
  0.018822279 = sum of:
    0.018822279 = weight(_text_:system in 1994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018822279 = score(doc=1994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 1994, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1994)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Research evaluation has become routine and often relies on metrics. But it is increasingly driven by data and not by expert judgement. As a result, the procedures that were designed to increase the quality of research are now threatening to damage the scientific system. To support researchers and managers, five experts led by Diana Hicks, professor in the School of Public Policy at Georgia Institute of Technology, and Paul Wouters, director of CWTS at Leiden University, have proposed ten principles for the measurement of research performance: the Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics published as a comment in Nature.

6.3146325E-4 = product of:
  0.0088404855 = sum of:
    0.0088404855 = weight(_text_:information in 3093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0088404855 = score(doc=3093,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.20526241 = fieldWeight in 3093, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3093)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

How do authors refer to Web-based information sources in their formal scientific publications? It is not yet weIl known how scientists and scholars actually include new types of information sources, available through the new media, in their published work. This article reports an a comparative study of the lists of references in 38 scientific journals in five different scientific and social scientific fields. The fields are sociology, library and information science, biochemistry and biotechnology, neuroscience, and the mathematics of computing. As is weIl known, references, citations, and hyperlinks play different roles in academic publishing and communication. Our study focuses an hyperlinks as attributes of references in formal scholarly publications. The study developed and applied a method to analyze the differential roles of publishing media in the analysis of scientific and scholarly literature references. The present secondary databases that include reference and citation data (the Web of Science) cannot be used for this type of research. By the automated processing and analysis of the full text of scientific and scholarly articles, we were able to extract the references and hyperlinks contained in these references in relation to other features of the scientific and scholarly literature. Our findings show that hyperlinking references are indeed, as expected, abundantly present in the formal literature. They also tend to cite more recent literature than the average reference. The large majority of the references are to Web instances of traditional scientific journals. Other types of Web-based information sources are less weIl represented in the lists of references, except in the case of pure e-journals. We conclude that this can be explained by taking the role of the publisher into account. Indeed, it seems that the shift from print-based to electronic publishing has created new roles for the publisher. By shaping the way scientific references are hyperlinking to other information sources, the publisher may have a large impact an the availability of scientific and scholarly information.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.14, S.1250-1260

4.2191416E-4 = product of:
  0.005906798 = sum of:
    0.005906798 = weight(_text_:information in 265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005906798 = score(doc=265,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 265, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=265)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

To provide some context for the potential engagement behavior of Twitter users around science, this article investigates how Bitly short links to scientific publications embedded in scholarly Twitter mentions are clicked on Twitter. Based on the click metrics of over 1.1 million Bitly short links referring to Web of Science (WoS) publications, our results show that around 49.5% of them were not clicked by Twitter users. For those Bitly short links with clicks from Twitter, the majority of their Twitter clicks accumulated within a short period of time after they were first tweeted. Bitly short links to the publications in the field of Social Sciences and Humanities tend to attract more clicks from Twitter over other subject fields. This article also assesses the extent to which Twitter clicks are correlated with some other impact indicators. Twitter clicks are weakly correlated with scholarly impact indicators (WoS citations and Mendeley readers), but moderately correlated to other Twitter engagement indicators (total retweets and total likes). In light of these results, we highlight the importance of paying more attention to the click metrics of URLs in scholarly Twitter mentions, to improve our understanding about the more effective dissemination and reception of science information on Twitter.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.7, S.918-932

2.9833836E-4 = product of:
  0.004176737 = sum of:
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=514,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 514, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=514)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.12, S.2405-2418

2.9833836E-4 = product of:
  0.004176737 = sum of:
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 2214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=2214,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2214, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2214)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.10, S.2003-2019

2.9833836E-4 = product of:
  0.004176737 = sum of:
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.10, S.2511-2521