Search (109 results, page 1 of 6)

0.01793665 = product of:
  0.09566213 = sum of:
    0.007559912 = weight(_text_:information in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007559912 = score(doc=5767,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5767, 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=5767)
    0.015872208 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015872208 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
    0.07223001 = weight(_text_:software in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07223001 = score(doc=5767,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.5798329 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Abstract

We explore the intellectual subject structure and research themes in software engineering through the identification and analysis of a core journal literature. We examine this literature via two expert perspectives: that of the author, who identified significant work by citing it (journal cocitation analysis), and that of the professional indexer, who tags published work with subject terms to facilitate retrieval from a bibliographic database (subject profile analysis). The data sources are SCISEARCH (the on-line version of Science Citation Index), and INSPEC (a database covering software engineering, computer science, and information systems). We use data visualization tools (cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and PFNets) to show the "intellectual maps" of software engineering. Cocitation and subject profile analyses demonstrate that software engineering is a distinct interdisciplinary field, valuing practical and applied aspects, and spanning a subject continuum from "programming-in-the-smalI" to "programming-in-the-large." This continuum mirrors the software development life cycle by taking the operating system or major application from initial programming through project management, implementation, and maintenance. Object orientation is an integral but distinct subject area in software engineering. Key differences are the importance of management and programming: (1) cocitation analysis emphasizes project management and systems development; (2) programming techniques/languages are more influential in subject profiles; (3) cocitation profiles place object-oriented journals separately and centrally while the subject profile analysis locates these journals with the programming/languages group

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.4, S.297-308

0.015345968 = product of:
  0.081845164 = sum of:
    0.04479914 = weight(_text_:web in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04479914 = score(doc=1065,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
    0.02956209 = product of:
      0.05912418 = sum of:
        0.05912418 = weight(_text_:publizieren in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05912418 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15493481 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.934158 = idf(docFreq=864, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.38160682 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.934158 = idf(docFreq=864, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0074839313 = weight(_text_:information in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074839313 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Abstract

This article reveals different patterns of scholarly communication in the XML research field on the Web and in print journals in terms of author visibility, and challenges the common practice of exclusively using the ISI's databases to obtain citation counts as scientific performance indicators. Results from this study demonstrate both the importance and the feasibility of the use of multiple citation data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication, and provide evidence for a developing "two tier" scholarly communication system.

Source

Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.6, S.1403-1418

Theme

Elektronisches Publizieren

0.014074849 = product of:
  0.07506586 = sum of:
    0.058422618 = weight(_text_:web in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058422618 = score(doc=337,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
    0.011297573 = product of:
      0.022595147 = sum of:
        0.022595147 = weight(_text_:online in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022595147 = score(doc=337,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09529729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.005345665 = weight(_text_:information in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005345665 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 337, 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=337)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Abstract

We use a new data gathering method, "Web/URL citation," Web/URL and Google Scholar to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, and education) based upon a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 open access (OA) journals published in 2001. A Web/URL citation of an online journal article is a Web mention of its title, URL, or both. For each discipline, except psychology, we found significant correlations between Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI, here: ISI) citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations. Google Scholar citations correlated more highly with ISI citations than did Google Web/URL citations, indicating that the Web/URL method measures a broader type of citation phenomenon. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines, suggesting that Google Scholar is more comprehensive for social sciences and perhaps also when conference articles are valued and published online. We also found large disciplinary differences in the percentage overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citation sources. Finally, although we found many significant trends, there were also numerous exceptions, suggesting that replacing traditional citation sources with the Web or Google Scholar for research impact calculations would be problematic.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.7, S.1055-1065

0.014055129 = product of:
  0.056220517 = sum of:
    0.022169823 = weight(_text_:web in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022169823 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.009586309 = product of:
      0.019172618 = sum of:
        0.019172618 = weight(_text_:online in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019172618 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09529729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.006414798 = weight(_text_:information in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006414798 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.018049588 = product of:
      0.036099177 = sum of:
        0.036099177 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036099177 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10995905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)

Abstract

This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20%, 50%, and 80% of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.858-862

0.010508559 = product of:
  0.042034235 = sum of:
    0.0147798825 = weight(_text_:web in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0147798825 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.0060479296 = weight(_text_:information in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060479296 = score(doc=5171,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.012697767 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012697767 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.008508657 = product of:
      0.017017314 = sum of:
        0.017017314 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017017314 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10995905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)

Abstract

Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.

Date

9. 7.2006 10:22:35

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.6, S.549-568

0.010329887 = product of:
  0.055092733 = sum of:
    0.005345665 = weight(_text_:information in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005345665 = score(doc=3763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3763, 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=3763)
    0.022446692 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022446692 = score(doc=3763,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
    0.027300376 = weight(_text_:software in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027300376 = score(doc=3763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Abstract

References from publications are at the same time citations to other publications. This entry introduces some of the practical uses of citation data in science and scholarship. At the individual level citations identify and permit the retrieval of specific editions of works, while also suggesting their subject matter, authority, and age. Through citation indexes, retrievals may include not only the earlier items referred to by a given work, but also the later items that cite that given work in turn. Some technical notes on retrieval are included here. Counts of citations received over time, and measures derived from them, reveal the varying impacts of works, authors, journals, organizations, and countries. This has obvious implications for the evaluation of, e.g., library collections, academics, research teams, and science policies. When treated as linkages between pairs of publications, references and citations reveal intellectual ties. Several kinds of links have been defined, such as cocitation, bibliographic coupling, and intercitation. In the aggregate, these links form networks that compactly suggest the intellectual histories of research specialties and disciplines, especially when the networks are visualized through mapping software. Citation analysis is of course not without critics, who have long pointed out imperfections in the data or in analytical techniques. However, the criticisms have generally been met by strong counterarguments from proponents.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.009998009 = product of:
  0.053322714 = sum of:
    0.013557088 = product of:
      0.027114175 = sum of:
        0.027114175 = weight(_text_:online in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027114175 = score(doc=4593,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09529729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.284522 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.012829596 = weight(_text_:information in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012829596 = score(doc=4593,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
    0.02693603 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02693603 = score(doc=4593,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Abstract

A citation analysis examined the 28 best articles published in JASIS from 1969-1996. Best articles tend to single-authored works twice as long as the avergae article published in JASIS. They are cited and self-cited much more often than the average article. The greatest source of references made to the best articles is from JASIS itself. The top 5 best papers focus largely on information retrieval and online searching

Content

Top by numbers of citations: (1) Saracevic, T. et al.: A study of information seeking and retrieving I-III (1988); (2) Bates, M.: Information search tactics (1979); (3) Cooper, W.S.: On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness (1973); (4) Marcus, R.S.: A experimental comparison of the effectiveness of computers and humans as search intermediaries (1983); (4) Fidel, R.: Online searching styles (1984)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.5, S.485-486

0.009271492 = product of:
  0.07417194 = sum of:
    0.06661203 = weight(_text_:web in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06661203 = score(doc=5176,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.65002745 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
    0.007559912 = weight(_text_:information in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007559912 = score(doc=5176,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5176, 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=5176)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

Vaughn, and Shaw look at the relationship between traditional citation and Web citation (not hyperlinks but rather textual mentions of published papers). Using English language research journals in ISI's 2000 Journal Citation Report - Information and Library Science category - 1209 full length papers published in 1997 in 46 journals were identified. Each was searched in Social Science Citation Index and on the Web using Google phrase search by entering the title in quotation marks, and followed for distinction where necessary with sub-titles, author's names, and journal title words. After removing obvious false drops, the number of web sites was recorded for comparison with the SSCI counts. A second sample from 1992 was also collected for examination. There were a total of 16,371 web citations to the selected papers. The top and bottom ranked four journals were then examined and every third citation to every third paper was selected and classified as to source type, domain, and country of origin. Web counts are much higher than ISI citation counts. Of the 46 journals from 1997, 26 demonstrated a significant correlation between Web and traditional citation counts, and 11 of the 15 in the 1992 sample also showed significant correlation. Journal impact factor in 1998 and 1999 correlated significantly with average Web citations per journal in the 1997 data, but at a low level. Thirty percent of web citations come from other papers posted on the web, and 30percent from listings of web based bibliographic services, while twelve percent come from class reading lists. High web citation journals often have web accessible tables of content.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.14, S.1313-1324

0.008337182 = product of:
  0.066697456 = sum of:
    0.051729593 = weight(_text_:web in 2584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051729593 = score(doc=2584,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 2584, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2584)
    0.0149678625 = weight(_text_:information in 2584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0149678625 = score(doc=2584,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 2584, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2584)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Source

Information processing and management. 38(2002) no.4, S.491-508

0.008337182 = product of:
  0.066697456 = sum of:
    0.051729593 = weight(_text_:web in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051729593 = score(doc=3890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
    0.0149678625 = weight(_text_:information in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0149678625 = score(doc=3890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Source

Journal of information science. 27(2001) no.1, S.1-7

0.008247816 = product of:
  0.06598253 = sum of:
    0.058422618 = weight(_text_:web in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058422618 = score(doc=3880,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 3880, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3880)
    0.007559912 = weight(_text_:information in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007559912 = score(doc=3880,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3880, 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=3880)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

The number and type of Web citations to journal articles in four areas of science are examined: biology, genetics, medicine, and multidisciplinary sciences. For a sample of 5,972 articles published in 114 journals, the median Web citation counts per journal article range from 6.2 in medicine to 10.4 in genetics. About 30% of Web citations in each area indicate intellectual impact (citations from articles or class readings, in contrast to citations from bibliographic services or the author's or journal's home page). Journals receiving more Web citations also have higher percentages of citations indicating intellectual impact. There is significant correlation between the number of citations reported in the databases from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now Thomson Scientific) and the number of citations retrieved using the Google search engine (Web citations). The correlation is much weaker for journals published outside the United Kingdom or United States and for multidisciplinary journals. Web citation numbers are higher than ISI citation counts, suggesting that Web searches might be conducted for an earlier or a more fine-grained assessment of an article's impact. The Web-evident impact of non-UK/USA publications might provide a balance to the geographic or cultural biases observed in ISI's data, although the stability of Web citation counts is debatable.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.10, S.1075-1087

0.007873059 = product of:
  0.062984474 = sum of:
    0.05542456 = weight(_text_:web in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05542456 = score(doc=4279,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.5408555 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
    0.007559912 = weight(_text_:information in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007559912 = score(doc=4279,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4279, 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=4279)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 39(2005), S.81-138

0.0075854994 = product of:
  0.060683995 = sum of:
    0.04957324 = weight(_text_:web in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04957324 = score(doc=3095,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 3095, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3095)
    0.011110757 = weight(_text_:information in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011110757 = score(doc=3095,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 3095, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3095)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

The Web is a huge source of information, and one of the main problems facing users is finding documents which correspond to their requirements. Apart from the problem of thematic relevance, the documents retrieved by search engines do not always meet the users' expectations. The document may be too general, or conversely too specialized, or of a different type from what the user is looking for, and so forth. We think that adding metadata to pages can considerably improve the process of searching for information an the Web. This article presents a possible typology for Web sites and pages, as weIl as a method for propagating metadata values, based an the study of the Web graph and more specifically the method of cocitation in this graph.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.14, S.1282-1289

0.0074519464 = product of:
  0.039743714 = sum of:
    0.009586309 = product of:
      0.019172618 = sum of:
        0.019172618 = weight(_text_:online in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019172618 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09529729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.011110757 = weight(_text_:information in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011110757 = score(doc=1080,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
    0.01904665 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01904665 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Abstract

Author searching is traditionally based on the matching of name strings. Special characteristics of authors as personal names and subject indicators are not considered. This makes it difficult to identify a set of related authors or to group authors by subjects in retrieval systems. In this paper, we describe the design and implementation of a prototype visualization system to enhance author searching. The system, called AuthorLink, is based on author co-citation analysis and visualization mapping algorithms such as Kohonen's feature maps and Pathfinder networks. AuthorLink produces interactive author maps in real time from a database of 1.26 million records supplied by the Institute for Scientific Information. The maps show subject groupings and more fine-grained intellectual connections among authors. Through the interactive interface the user can take advantage of such information to refine queries and retrieve documents through point-and-click manipulation of the authors' names.

Source

Information processing and management. 39(2003) no.5, S.689-706

0.0069985045 = product of:
  0.055988036 = sum of:
    0.04957324 = weight(_text_:web in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04957324 = score(doc=943,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
    0.006414798 = weight(_text_:information in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006414798 = score(doc=943,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

Citation analysis of documents retrieved from the Medline database (at the Web of Knowledge) has been possible only on a case-by-case basis. A technique is presented here for citation analysis in batch mode using both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) at the Web of Knowledge and the Science Citation Index at the Web of Science (WoS). This freeware routine is applied to the case of "Brugada Syndrome," a specific disease and field of research (since 1992). The journals containing these publications, for example, are attributed to WoS categories other than "cardiac and cardiovascular systems", perhaps because of the possibility of genetic testing for this syndrome in the clinic. With this routine, all the instruments available for citation analysis can now be used on the basis of MeSH terms. Other options for crossing between Medline, WoS, and Scopus are also reviewed.

Object

Web of Knowledge

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.1076-1080

0.006601734 = product of:
  0.052813873 = sum of:
    0.045253962 = weight(_text_:web in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045253962 = score(doc=6851,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 6851, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6851)
    0.007559912 = weight(_text_:information in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007559912 = score(doc=6851,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 6851, 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=6851)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

Much has been written about the potential and pitfalls of macroscopic Web-based link analysis, yet there have been no studies that have provided clear statistical evidence that any of the proposed calculations can produce results over large areas of the Web that correlate with phenomena external to the Internet. This article attempts to provide such evidence through an evaluation of Ingwersen's (1998) proposed external Web Impact Factor (WIF) for the original use of the Web: the interlinking of academic research. In particular, it studies the case of the relationship between academic hyperlinks and research activity for universities in Britain, a country chosen for its variety of institutions and the existence of an official government rating exercise for research. After reviewing the numerous reasons why link counts may be unreliable, it demonstrates that four different WIFs do, in fact, correlate with the conventional academic research measures. The WIF delivering the greatest correlation with research rankings was the ratio of Web pages with links pointing at research-based pages to faculty numbers. The scarcity of links to electronic academic papers in the data set suggests that, in contrast to citation analysis, this WIF is measuring the reputations of universities and their scholars, rather than the quality of their publications

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.13, S.1157-1168

0.006535384 = product of:
  0.05228307 = sum of:
    0.04479914 = weight(_text_:web in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04479914 = score(doc=1255,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
    0.0074839313 = weight(_text_:information in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074839313 = score(doc=1255,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

Chemical Abstracts Service recently unveiled citation searching in Chemical Abstracts. With Chemical Abstracts and Science Citation Index both now available for citation searching, this study compares the duplication and uniqueness of citing references for works of chemistry researchers for the years 1999-2001. The two indexes cover very similar source material, so one would expect the citation results to be very similar. This analysis of SciFinder Scholar and Web of Science shows some important differences as the databases are currently offered. Authors and institutions using citation counts as measures of scientific productivity should take note.

Object

Web of science

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.14, S.1210-1215

0.006535384 = product of:
  0.05228307 = sum of:
    0.04479914 = weight(_text_:web in 165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04479914 = score(doc=165,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 165, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=165)
    0.0074839313 = weight(_text_:information in 165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074839313 = score(doc=165,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 165, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=165)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

The use of citation counts to assess the impact of research articles is well established. However, the citation impact of an article can only be measured several years after it has been published. As research articles are increasingly accessed through the Web, the number of times an article is downloaded can be instantly recorded and counted. One would expect the number of times an article is read to be related both to the number of times it is cited and to how old the article is. The authors analyze how short-term Web usage impact predicts medium-term citation impact. The physics e-print archive-arXiv.org-is used to test this.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.8, S.1060-1072

0.0063925944 = product of:
  0.051140755 = sum of:
    0.017106129 = weight(_text_:information in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017106129 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
    0.03403463 = product of:
      0.06806926 = sum of:
        0.06806926 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06806926 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10995905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx

0.0063653616 = product of:
  0.050922893 = sum of:
    0.012829596 = weight(_text_:information in 4175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012829596 = score(doc=4175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4175)
    0.0380933 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0380933 = score(doc=4175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 4175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4175)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)