Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.014631464 = product of:
  0.058525857 = sum of:
    0.058525857 = weight(_text_:data in 5073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058525857 = score(doc=5073,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.3952563 = fieldWeight in 5073, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5073)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses basic technical methodological issues with respect to data collection and the construction of bibliometric indicators, particular at the macro or meso level. Focuses on the use of the Science Citation Index. Aims to highlight important decisions that have to be made in the process of data collection and the construction of bibliometric indicators. Illustrates differences in the methodologies applied by several important producers of bibliometric indicators, thus illustrating the complexity of the process of 'standardization'

0.012802532 = product of:
  0.051210128 = sum of:
    0.051210128 = weight(_text_:data in 3920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051210128 = score(doc=3920,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 3920, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3920)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Science mapping is discussed in the general context of information visualization. Attempts to construct maps of science using citation data are reviewed, focusing on the use of co-citation clusters. New work is reported on a dataset of about 36.000 documents using simplified methods for ordination, and nesting maps hierarchically. an overall map of the dataset shows the multidisciplinary breadth of the document sample, and submaps allow drilling down the document level. An effort to visualize these data using advanced virtual reality software is described, and the creation of document pathways through the map is seen as a realization of Bush's associative trails

0.012688936 = product of:
  0.050755743 = sum of:
    0.050755743 = product of:
      0.101511486 = sum of:
        0.101511486 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.101511486 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, 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=4604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

7. 2.2005 14:10:22

0.010973599 = product of:
  0.043894395 = sum of:
    0.043894395 = weight(_text_:data in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043894395 = score(doc=3376,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Gives an outline of a new bibliometric database based upon all articles published by authors from the Netherlands and processed during 1980-1993 by ISI for the SCI, SSCI and AHCI. Describes various types of information added to the database: data on articles citing the Dutch publications; detailed citation data on ISI journals and subfields; and a classification system of the main publishing organizations. Also gives an overview of the types of bibliometric indicators constructed. and discusses their relationship to indicators developed by other researchers in the field. Gives 2 applications to illustrate the potentials of the database and of the bibliometric indicators derived from it: one that represents a synthesis of 'classical' macro indicator studies on the one hand and bibliometric analyses of research groups on the other; and a second that gives for the first time a detailed analysis of a country's publications per institutional sector

0.0103460075 = product of:
  0.04138403 = sum of:
    0.04138403 = weight(_text_:data in 8505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04138403 = score(doc=8505,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 8505, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8505)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Focuses on a way to determine a ranking of science journals according to the number of citations-to and items-published data used by Science Citation Insitute of Citation Reports of the Institute for Science Information to determine journal ranking by impact factor. Applies latent traits theory to bibliometrics

0.009052756 = product of:
  0.036211025 = sum of:
    0.036211025 = weight(_text_:data in 7827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036211025 = score(doc=7827,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 7827, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7827)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reviews the scale, range and consistency of acknowledgement behaviour, in citations, for a number of academic disciplines. The qualitative and quantitative evidence suggests a pervasive and consistent practice in which acknowledgements define a variety of social, cognitive and instrumental relationships between scholars and within and across disciplines. As such they may be used alongside other bibliometric indicators, such as citations, to map networks of influence. Considers the case for using acknowledgements data in the assessment of academic performance and proposes an online acknowledgement index to facilitate this process, perhaps as a logical extension of ISI's citation indexing products

0.009052756 = product of:
  0.036211025 = sum of:
    0.036211025 = weight(_text_:data in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036211025 = score(doc=2809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Provides a synoptic review and history of citation indexes and their evolution into research evaluation tools including a discussion of the use of bibliometric data for evaluating US institutions (academic departments) by the National Research Council (NRC). Covers the origin and uses of periodical impact factors, validation studies of citation analysis, information retrieval and dissemination (current awareness), citation consciousness, historiography and science mapping, Citation Classics, and the history of contemporary science. Illustrates the retrieval of information by cited reference searching, especially as it applies to avoiding duplicated research. Discusses the 15 year cumulative impacts of periodicals and the percentage of uncitedness, the emergence of scientometrics, old boy networks, and citation frequency distributions. Concludes with observations about the future of citation indexing

0.009052756 = product of:
  0.036211025 = sum of:
    0.036211025 = weight(_text_:data in 3571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036211025 = score(doc=3571,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 3571, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3571)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses the Web of Science database recently introduced by ISI, and which is compiled from 8.000 journals covered in the SCI, SSCI and AHCI. Briefly compares the database with the Citation Indexes as provided by the BIDS service at the University of Bath. Explores the characteristics and usefulness of the WoS through a search of it for articles on the topic of image retrieval by shape matching. Suggests that the selection of articles of interest is much easier and far quicker using the WoS than other methods of conducting a search using ISI's data

0.008478476 = product of:
  0.033913903 = sum of:
    0.033913903 = product of:
      0.067827806 = sum of:
        0.067827806 = weight(_text_:processing in 3741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067827806 = score(doc=3741,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.35780904 = fieldWeight in 3741, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3741)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.1, S.95-112

0.0077595054 = product of:
  0.031038022 = sum of:
    0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031038022 = score(doc=1825,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to investigate the place and role of citation analysis in selected disciplines in the social sciences, including library and information science. 5 core library and information science periodicals: Journal of documentation; Library quarterly; Journal of the American Society for Information Science; College and research libraries; and the Journal of information science, were studed to determine the percentage of articles devoted to citation analysis and develop an indictive typology to categorize the major foci of research being conducted under the rubric of citation analysis. Similar analysis was conducted for periodicals in other social sciences disciplines. Demonstrates how the rubric can be used to dertermine how citatiion analysis is applied within library and information science and other disciplines. By isolating citation from bibliometrics in general, this work is differentiated from other, previous studies. Analysis of data from a 10 year sample of transdisciplinary social sciences literature suggests that 2 application areas predominate: the validity of citation as an evaluation tool; and impact or performance studies of authors, periodicals, and institutions

0.0077595054 = product of:
  0.031038022 = sum of:
    0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 5120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031038022 = score(doc=5120,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 5120, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5120)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

There is an ongoing discussion on the influence of international collaboration on impact as measured by citation based indicators. Collaboration generally involves more authors than 'no collaboration' work and it is obvious that the phenomenon of self citation will be stronger (there are more authors to cite themselves). Thus it can be seen as an important 'amplifier' of measured impact. Asserts, however, that this effect should not be considered as the only or even major explanation of higher impact in the comparison between 'no collaboration' and international collaboration. Using data of an extensive bibliometric study of astronomical research in the Netherlands, proves that higher rates of self citation in international collaboration do not play any significant role as 'impact amplifier'. The central point is that proper impact measurement must involve corrections for self citations

0.0063588563 = product of:
  0.025435425 = sum of:
    0.025435425 = product of:
      0.05087085 = sum of:
        0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 4298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05087085 = score(doc=4298,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 4298, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4298)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0051730038 = product of:
  0.020692015 = sum of:
    0.020692015 = weight(_text_:data in 4719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020692015 = score(doc=4719,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 4719, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4719)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

During the past decades, journal impact data obtained from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) have gained relevance in library management, research management and research evaluation. Hence, both information scientists and bibliometricians share the responsibility towards the users of the JCR to analyse the reliability and validity of its measures thoroughly, to indicate pitfalls and to suggest possible improvements. In this article, ageing patterns are examined in 'formal' use or impact of all scientific journals processed for the Science Citation Index (SCI) during 1981-1995. A new classification system of journals in terms of their ageing characteristics is introduced. This system has been applied to as many as 3,098 journals covered by the Science Citation Index. Following an earlier suggestion by Glnzel and Schoepflin, a maturing and a decline phase are distinguished. From an analysis across all subfields it has been concluded that ageing characteristics are primarily specific to the individual journal rather than to the subfield, while the distribution of journals in terms of slowly or rapidly maturing or declining types is specific to the subfield. It is shown that the cited half life (CHL), printed in the JCR, is an inappropriate measure of decline of journal impact. Following earlier work by Line and others, a more adequate parameter of decline is calculated taking into account the size of annual volumes during a range of fifteen years. For 76 per cent of SCI journals the relative difference between this new parameter and the ISI CHL exceeds 5 per cent. The current JCR journal impact factor is proven to be biased towards journals revealing a rapid maturing and decline in impact. Therefore, a longer term impact factor is proposed, as well as a normalised impact statistic, taking into account citation characteristics of the research subfield covered by a journal and the type of documents published in it. When these new measures are combined with the proposed ageing classification system, they provide a significantly improved picture of a journal's impact to that obtained from the JCR.

0.0047583506 = product of:
  0.019033402 = sum of:
    0.019033402 = product of:
      0.038066804 = sum of:
        0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038066804 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles

0.0047583506 = product of:
  0.019033402 = sum of:
    0.019033402 = product of:
      0.038066804 = sum of:
        0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038066804 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:33:24