Search (117 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Vaughan, L.; Shaw , D.: Bibliographic and Web citations : what Is the difference? (2003) 0.02 
    0.017956844 = product of:
  0.07631659 = sum of:
    0.013703404 = product of:
      0.027406808 = sum of:
        0.027406808 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027406808 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11129492 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.027988197 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027988197 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11246919 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
    0.027406808 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027406808 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11129492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
    0.007218178 = weight(_text_:in in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007218178 = score(doc=5176,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
  0.23529412 = coord(4/17)
    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.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
  2. Aström, F.: Changes in the LIS research front : time-sliced cocitation analyses of LIS journal articles, 1990-2004 (2007) 0.02 
    0.017956844 = product of:
  0.07631659 = sum of:
    0.013703404 = product of:
      0.027406808 = sum of:
        0.027406808 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027406808 = score(doc=329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11129492 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 329, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.027988197 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027988197 = score(doc=329,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11246919 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 329, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=329)
    0.027406808 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027406808 = score(doc=329,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11129492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 329, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=329)
    0.007218178 = weight(_text_:in in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007218178 = score(doc=329,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 329, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=329)
  0.23529412 = coord(4/17)
    Abstract
    Based on articles published in 1990-2004 in 21 library and information science (LIS) journals, a set of cocitation analyses was performed to study changes in research fronts over the last 15 years, where LIS is at now, and to discuss where it is heading. To study research fronts, here defined as current and influential cocited articles, a citations among documents methodology was applied; and to study changes, the analyses were time-sliced into three 5-year periods. The results show a stable structure of two distinct research fields: informetrics and information seeking and retrieval (ISR). However, experimental retrieval research and user oriented research have merged into one ISR field; and IR and informetrics also show signs of coming closer together, sharing research interests and methodologies, making informetrics research more visible in mainstream LIS research. Furthermore, the focus on the Internet, both in ISR research and in informetrics-where webometrics quickly has become a dominating research area-is an important change. The future is discussed in terms of LIS dependency on technology, how integration of research areas as well as technical systems can be expected to continue to characterize LIS research, and how webometrics will continue to develop and find applications.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
  3. De Bellis, N.: Bibliometrics and citation analysis : from the Science citation index to cybermetrics (2008) 0.01 
    0.009436515 = product of:
  0.053473584 = sum of:
    0.033731487 = weight(_text_:buch in 3585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033731487 = score(doc=3585,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11608105 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.29058564 = fieldWeight in 3585, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3585)
    0.01434051 = weight(_text_:und in 3585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01434051 = score(doc=3585,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.25915268 = fieldWeight in 3585, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3585)
    0.0054015904 = weight(_text_:in in 3585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054015904 = score(doc=3585,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.15905021 = fieldWeight in 3585, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3585)
  0.1764706 = coord(3/17)
    Content
    Inhalt: Biblio/sciento/infor-metrics : terminological issues and early historical developments -- The empirical foundations of bibliometrics : the Science citation index -- The philosophical foundations of bibliometrics : Bernal, Merton, Price, Garfield, and Small -- The mathematical foundations of bibliometrics -- Maps and paradigms : bibliographic citations at the service of the history and sociology of science -- Impact factor and the evaluation of scientists : bibliographic citations at the service of science policy and management -- On the shoulders of dwarfs : citation as rhetorical device and the criticisms to the normative model -- Measuring scientific communication in the twentieth century : from bibliometrics to cybermetrics.
    Footnote
    Rez. in: JASIS 61(2010) no.1, S.205-207 (Jeppe Nicolaisen) Weitere Rez. in: Mitt VÖB 63(2010) H.1/2, S.134-135 (J. Gorraiz u. M. Wieland): "Das Buch entwickelte sich aus einem mehrjährigen Forschungsprojekt mit dem Ziel, den schwer verständlichen quantitativen Kern der Bibliometrie in einem für primär italienische Bibliothekare leichteren historischen und philosophischen Kontext zu vermitteln, wie der Autor im Vorwort erklärt. Dank einer Empfehlung von Eugene Garfield steht dieses Werk nun auch in englischer Übersetzung einer internationalen Leserschaft zur Verfügung. Die über 400 Seiten lange Monografie von de Bellis gibt in acht Kapiteln einen detaillierten und sehr präzisen Überblick über die Bibliometrie und die Zitationsanalyse, ihre Natur und Entwicklung, ihre Kontroverse und Prognose. . . . Das Buch von de Bellis ist sehr empfehlenswert für alle die beabsichtigen, sich mit dieser neuen Wissenschaft zu beschäftigen. Es endet mit folgendem Statement: "Scientometricians have to learn to live in a multidimensional world". Und genau hier liegt die Herausforderung und Schönheit dieses Metiers."
  4. White, H.D.; McCain, K.W.: Visualizing a discipline : an author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972-1995 (1998) 0.01 
    0.0059477245 = product of:
  0.050555658 = sum of:
    0.044781115 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 5020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044781115 = score(doc=5020,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11246919 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.3981634 = fieldWeight in 5020, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5020)
    0.0057745427 = weight(_text_:in in 5020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0057745427 = score(doc=5020,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 5020, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5020)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)
    Abstract
    Presents an extensive domain analysis of information science in terms of its authors. Names of those most frequently cited in 12 key journals from 1972 through 1995 were retrieved from Social SciSearch via Dialog. The top 120 were submitted to author co-citation analyzes, yielding automatic classifications relevant to histories of the field
    Field
    Informationswissenschaft
  5. Case, D.O.; Higgins, G.M.: How can we investigate citation behavior? : A study of reasons for citing literature in communication (2000) 0.00 
    0.0039640786 = product of:
  0.03369467 = sum of:
    0.027988197 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027988197 = score(doc=4775,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11246919 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 4775, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4775)
    0.005706471 = weight(_text_:in in 4775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005706471 = score(doc=4775,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 4775, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4775)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)
    Abstract
    Authors' motivation for citing documents are addressed through a literature review and an empirical study. Replicating an investigation in psychology, the works of 2 highly-cited authors in the discipline of communication were identified, and all of the authros who cited them during the period 1995-1997 were surveyed. The instrument posed 32 questions about why a certain document was cited, plus questions about the citer's relationship to the cited author and document. Most findings were similar to the psychology study, including a tendency to cite 'concept markers' representing a genre of work. Authors in communication were more likely to have an interpersonal connection to cited authors, and to cite literatire reviews - their most common reason for citation. 3 types of judgements about cited works were found to best predict citation: (1) that the work was novel, well-known, and a concept-marker; (2) that citing it might promote the authority of one's own work; and (3) that the work deserved criticism. Suggestions are made for further research, especially regarding the anomalous role of creativity in cited works
    Field
    Informationswissenschaft
  6. Cronin, B.; Shaw, D.: Banking (on) different forms of symbolic capital (2002) 0.00 
    0.0026341833 = product of:
  0.044781115 = sum of:
    0.044781115 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 1263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044781115 = score(doc=1263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11246919 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.3981634 = fieldWeight in 1263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1263)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    Field
    Informationswissenschaft
  7. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.00 
    0.002197935 = product of:
  0.018682448 = sum of:
    0.004330907 = weight(_text_:in in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004330907 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.014351541 = product of:
      0.028703082 = sum of:
        0.028703082 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028703082 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08743035 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = 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)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)
    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
  8. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.00 
    0.0021471125 = product of:
  0.018250456 = sum of:
    0.008102385 = weight(_text_:in in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008102385 = score(doc=201,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
    0.010148071 = product of:
      0.020296142 = sum of:
        0.020296142 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020296142 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08743035 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)
    Abstract
    Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
  9. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.00 
    0.0020764025 = product of:
  0.017649421 = sum of:
    0.007501351 = weight(_text_:in in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007501351 = score(doc=994,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.010148071 = product of:
      0.020296142 = sum of:
        0.020296142 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020296142 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08743035 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = 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)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)
    Abstract
    Citation rates are becoming increasingly important in judging the research quality of journals, institutions and departments, and individual faculty. This paper looks at the pattern of citations across different management science journals and over time. A stochastic model is proposed which views the generating mechanism of citations as a gamma mixture of Poisson processes generating overall a negative binomial distribution. This is tested empirically with a large sample of papers published in 1990 from six management science journals and found to fit well. The model is extended to include obsolescence, i.e., that the citation rate for a paper varies over its cited lifetime. This leads to the additional citations distribution which shows that future citations are a linear function of past citations with a time-dependent and decreasing slope. This is also verified empirically in a way that allows different obsolescence functions to be fitted to the data. Conclusions concerning the predictability of future citations, and future research in this area are discussed.
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem "Special Issue on Informetrics"
  10. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.00 
    0.0015918544 = product of:
  0.027061524 = sum of:
    0.027061524 = product of:
      0.054123048 = sum of:
        0.054123048 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054123048 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08743035 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = 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)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  11. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.00 
    0.0014070136 = product of:
  0.023919232 = sum of:
    0.023919232 = product of:
      0.047838464 = sum of:
        0.047838464 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047838464 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08743035 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  12. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.00 
    0.0012119473 = product of:
  0.010301552 = sum of:
    0.0035361708 = weight(_text_:in in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035361708 = score(doc=5171,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.1041228 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.006765381 = product of:
      0.013530762 = sum of:
        0.013530762 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013530762 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08743035 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = 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)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)
    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
  13. Nederhof, A.J.; Visser, M.S.: Quantitative deconstruction of citation impact indicators : waxing field impact but waning journal impact (2004) 0.00 
    5.974634E-4 = product of:
  0.010156877 = sum of:
    0.010156877 = weight(_text_:in in 4419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010156877 = score(doc=4419,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.29906997 = fieldWeight in 4419, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4419)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    Abstract
    In two case studies of research units, reference values used to benchmark research performance appeared to show contradictory results: the average citation level in the subfields (FCSm) increased world-wide, while the citation level of the journals (JCSm) decreased, where concomitant changes were expected. Explanations were sought in: a shift in preference of document types; a change in publication preference for subfields; and changes in journal coverage. Publishing in newly covered journals with a low impact had a negative effect on impact ratios. However, the main factor behind the increase in FCSm was the distribution of articles across the five-year block periods that were studied. Publication in lower impact journals produced a lagging JCSm. Actual values of JCSm, FCSm, and citations per publication (CPP) values are not very informative either about research performance, or about the development of impact over time in a certain subfield with block indicators. Normalized citation impact indicators are free from such effects and should be consulted primarily in research performance assessments.
  14. Leydesdorff, L.: Dynamic and evolutionary updates of classificatory schemes in scientific journal structures (2002) 0.00 
    5.944382E-4 = product of:
  0.01010545 = sum of:
    0.01010545 = weight(_text_:in in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01010545 = score(doc=1249,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.29755569 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    Abstract
    Can the inclusion of new journals in the Science Citation Index be used for the indication of structural change in the database, and how can this change be compared with reorganizations of reiations among previously included journals? Change in the number of journals (n) is distinguished from change in the number of journal categories (m). Although the number of journals can be considered as a given at each moment in time, the number of journal categories is based an a reconstruction that is time-stamped ex post. The reflexive reconstruction is in need of an update when new information becomes available in a next year. Implications of this shift towards an evolutionary perspective are specified.
  15. Ardanuy, J.: Sixty years of citation analysis studies in the humanities (1951-2010) (2013) 0.00 
    5.6965894E-4 = product of:
  0.009684202 = sum of:
    0.009684202 = weight(_text_:in in 1015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009684202 = score(doc=1015,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.28515202 = fieldWeight in 1015, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1015)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    Abstract
    This article provides an overview of studies that have used citation analysis in the field of humanities in the period 1951 to 2010. The work is based on an exhaustive search in databases-particularly those in library and information science-and on citation chaining from papers on citation analysis. The results confirm that use of this technique in the humanities is limited, and although there was some growth in the 1970s and 1980s, it has stagnated in the past 2 decades. Most of the work has been done by research staff, but almost one third involves library staff, and 15% has been done by students. The study also showed that less than one fourth of the works used a citation database such as the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and that 21% of the works were in publications other than library and information science journals. The United States has the greatest output, and English is by far the most frequently used language, and 13.9% of the studies are in other languages.
  16. Száva-Kováts, E.: Indirect-collective referencing (ICR) in the elite journal literature of physics : I: a literature science study on the journal level (2001) 0.00 
    5.560461E-4 = product of:
  0.0094527835 = sum of:
    0.0094527835 = weight(_text_:in in 5180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0094527835 = score(doc=5180,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.27833787 = fieldWeight in 5180, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5180)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    Abstract
    In the second bibliometric paper SzavaKovtas uses ``indirectcollective references, ICR'' to mean such instances as those in which an author refers to, ``the references contained therein,'' when referring to another source. Having previously shown a high instance of occurrences in Physical Reviews, he now uses the January 1997 issues of 40 journals from the ISI physics category plus two optics journals, an instrumentation journal, and a physics journal launched in 1997, to locate ICR. The phenomena exists in all but one of the sampled journals and in the next, but unsampled, issue of that journal. Overall 17% of papers sampled display ICR with little fluctuation within internal categories.
  17. Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Multiple publication on a single research study: does it pay? : The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine (2007) 0.00 
    5.412593E-4 = product of:
  0.009201408 = sum of:
    0.009201408 = weight(_text_:in in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009201408 = score(doc=444,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.27093613 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    Abstract
    Scientists may seek to report a single definable body of research in more than one publication, that is, in repeated reports of the same work or in fractional reports, in order to disseminate their research as widely as possible in the scientific community. Up to now, however, it has not been examined whether this strategy of "multiple publication" in fact leads to greater reception of the research. In the present study, we investigate the influence of number of articles reporting the results of a single study on reception in the scientific community (total citation counts of an article on a single study). Our data set consists of 96 applicants for a research fellowship from the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds (BIF), an international foundation for the promotion of basic research in biomedicine. The applicants reported to us all articles that they had published within the framework of their doctoral research projects. On this single project, the applicants had published from 1 to 16 articles (M = 4; Mdn = 3). The results of a regression model with an interaction term show that the practice of multiple publication of research study results does in fact lead to greater reception of the research (higher total citation counts) in the scientific community. However, reception is dependent upon length of article: the longer the article, the more total citation counts increase with the number of articles. Thus, it pays for scientists to practice multiple publication of study results in the form of sizable reports.
  18. Száva-Kováts, E.: Indirect-collective referencing (ICR) : life course, nature, and importance of a special kind of science referencing (1999) 0.00 
    5.4042594E-4 = product of:
  0.009187241 = sum of:
    0.009187241 = weight(_text_:in in 4298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009187241 = score(doc=4298,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.27051896 = fieldWeight in 4298, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4298)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    Abstract
    Indirect collective referencing (ICR) is a special kind of indirect referencing, in an act making reference to all references cited in a directly cited paper. In this research the literature phenomenon of ICR is defined in the narrowest sense, taking into account only its indisputable minimum. To reveal the life course of this phenomenon, a longitudinal section was taken in the representative elite general physics journal, The Physical Review, processing more than 4.200 journal papers from 1897 to 1997 and their close to 84.00 formal references. This investigation showed that the ICR phenomenon has existed in the journal for a century now; that the frequency and intensity of the phenomenon have been constantly increasing in both absolute and relative terms since the last, mature period of the Little Science age; and that this growth has accelerated in the publication explosion of the Big Science age. It was shown that the Citation Indexes show only a fraction of the really cited references in the journal
  19. Leydesdorff, L.: Theories of citation? (1999) 0.00 
    5.147986E-4 = product of:
  0.008751577 = sum of:
    0.008751577 = weight(_text_:in in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008751577 = score(doc=5130,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    Abstract
    Citations support the communication of specialist knowledge by allowing authors and readers to make specific selections in several contexts at the same time. In the interactions between the social network of authors and the network of their reflexive communications, a sub textual code of communication with a distributed character has emerged. Citation analysis reflects on citation practices. Reference lists are aggregated in scientometric analysis using one of the available contexts to reduce the complexity: geometrical representations of dynamic operations are reflected in corresponding theories of citation. The specific contexts represented in the modern citation can be deconstructed from the perspective of the cultural evolution of scientific communication
    Footnote
    Lead paper in a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'
  20. Zhao, D.: Challenges of scholarly publications on the Web to the evaluation of science : a comparison of author visibility on the Web and in print journals (2005) 0.00 
    5.147986E-4 = product of:
  0.008751577 = sum of:
    0.008751577 = weight(_text_:in in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008751577 = score(doc=1065,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    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.
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem "Special Issue on Infometrics"

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 113
  • m 3
  • s 2
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications