-
Zhang, Y.: ¬The impact of Internet-based electronic resources on formal scholarly communication in the area of library and information science : a citation analysis (1998)
0.05
0.050776683 = sum of:
0.025859741 = product of:
0.103438966 = sum of:
0.103438966 = weight(_text_:authors in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.103438966 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.05201693 = queryNorm
0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.024916941 = product of:
0.049833883 = sum of:
0.049833883 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049833883 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18215442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05201693 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2808, 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=2808)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Internet based electronic resources are growing dramatically but there have been no empirical studies evaluating the impact of e-sources, as a whole, on formal scholarly communication. reports results of an investigation into how much e-sources have been used in formal scholarly communication, using a case study in the area of Library and Information Science (LIS) during the period 1994 to 1996. 4 citation based indicators were used in the study of the impact measurement. Concludes that, compared with the impact of print sources, the impact of e-sources on formal scholarly communication in LIS is small, as measured by e-sources cited, and does not increase significantly by year even though there is observable growth of these impact across the years. It is found that periodical format is related to the rate of citing e-sources, articles are more likely to cite e-sources than are print priodical articles. However, once authors cite electronic resource, there is no significant difference in the number of references per article by periodical format or by year. Suggests that, at this stage, citing e-sources may depend on authors rather than the periodical format in which authors choose to publish
- Date
- 30. 1.1999 17:22:22
-
Zhang, Y.; Jansen, B.J.; Spink, A.: Identification of factors predicting clickthrough in Web searching using neural network analysis (2009)
0.01
0.010571363 = product of:
0.021142727 = sum of:
0.021142727 = product of:
0.042285454 = sum of:
0.042285454 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042285454 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18215442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05201693 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 17:49:11
-
Zhang, Y.; Wu, M.; Zhang, G.; Lu, J.: Stepping beyond your comfort zone : diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation (2023)
0.01
0.00880947 = product of:
0.01761894 = sum of:
0.01761894 = product of:
0.03523788 = sum of:
0.03523788 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03523788 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18215442 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05201693 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:07:12
-
Lu, C.; Zhang, Y.; Ahn, Y.-Y.; Ding, Y.; Zhang, C.; Ma, D.: Co-contributorship network and division of labor in individual scientific collaborations (2020)
0.01
0.0074650636 = product of:
0.014930127 = sum of:
0.014930127 = product of:
0.05972051 = sum of:
0.05972051 = weight(_text_:authors in 5963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05972051 = score(doc=5963,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.05201693 = queryNorm
0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5963, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5963)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Collaborations are pervasive in current science. Collaborations have been studied and encouraged in many disciplines. However, little is known about how a team really functions from the detailed division of labor within. In this research, we investigate the patterns of scientific collaboration and division of labor within individual scholarly articles by analyzing their co-contributorship networks. Co-contributorship networks are constructed by performing the one-mode projection of the author-task bipartite networks obtained from 138,787 articles published in PLoS journals. Given an article, we define 3 types of contributors: Specialists, Team-players, and Versatiles. Specialists are those who contribute to all their tasks alone; team-players are those who contribute to every task with other collaborators; and versatiles are those who do both. We find that team-players are the majority and they tend to contribute to the 5 most common tasks as expected, such as "data analysis" and "performing experiments." The specialists and versatiles are more prevalent than expected by our designed 2 null models. Versatiles tend to be senior authors associated with funding and supervision. Specialists are associated with 2 contrasting roles: the supervising role as team leaders or marginal and specialized contributors.
