-
Ding, Y.; Yan, E.: Scholarly network similarities : how bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other (2012)
0.01
0.012690852 = product of:
0.025381705 = sum of:
0.025381705 = product of:
0.10152682 = sum of:
0.10152682 = weight(_text_:authors in 274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10152682 = score(doc=274,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.05210816 = queryNorm
0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 274, 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=274)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This study explores the similarity among six types of scholarly networks aggregated at the institution level, including bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks. Cosine distance is chosen to measure the similarities among the six networks. The authors found that topical networks and coauthorship networks have the lowest similarity; cocitation networks and citation networks have high similarity; bibliographic coupling networks and cocitation networks have high similarity; and coword networks and topical networks have high similarity. In addition, through multidimensional scaling, two dimensions can be identified among the six networks: Dimension 1 can be interpreted as citation-based versus noncitation-based, and Dimension 2 can be interpreted as social versus cognitive. The authors recommend the use of hybrid or heterogeneous networks to study research interaction and scholarly communications.
-
Yan, E.: Finding knowledge paths among scientific disciplines (2014)
0.01
0.012480322 = product of:
0.024960645 = sum of:
0.024960645 = product of:
0.04992129 = sum of:
0.04992129 = weight(_text_:22 in 1534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04992129 = score(doc=1534,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05210816 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1534, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1534)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 26.10.2014 20:22:22
-
Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: Weighted citation : an indicator of an article's prestige (2010)
0.01
0.01196505 = product of:
0.0239301 = sum of:
0.0239301 = product of:
0.0957204 = sum of:
0.0957204 = weight(_text_:authors in 3705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0957204 = score(doc=3705,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.05210816 = queryNorm
0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 3705, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3705)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The authors propose using the technique of weighted citation to measure an article's prestige. The technique allocates a different weight to each reference by taking into account the impact of citing journals and citation time intervals. Weightedcitation captures prestige, whereas citation counts capture popularity. They compare the value variances for popularity and prestige for articles published in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology from 1998 to 2007, and find that the majority have comparable status.
