Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03482447 = product of:
  0.08706117 = sum of:
    0.068408646 = weight(_text_:social in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068408646 = score(doc=3692,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.3738355 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
    0.01865252 = product of:
      0.03730504 = sum of:
        0.03730504 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03730504 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to examine the patterns of self citation in 6 disciplines distributed among the physical and social sciences and humanities. Sample articles were examined to deermine the relative numbers and ages of self citations and citations to other in the bibliographies and to the exposure given to each type of citation in the text of the articles. significant differences were found in the number and age of citations between disciplines. Overall, 9% of all citations were self citations; 15% of physical sciences citations were self citations, as opposed to 6% in the social sciences and 3% in the humanities. Within disciplines, there was no significantly different amount of coverage between self citations and citations to others. Overall, it appears that a lack of substantive differences in self citation behaviour is consistent across disciplines

Date

22. 5.1999 19:33:24

0.019348888 = product of:
  0.09674444 = sum of:
    0.09674444 = weight(_text_:social in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09674444 = score(doc=1825,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.52868325 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.018242307 = product of:
  0.091211535 = sum of:
    0.091211535 = weight(_text_:social in 3300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.091211535 = score(doc=3300,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.49844736 = fieldWeight in 3300, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3300)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Seeks to describe the social networks, or invisible colleges, that make up a scientific speciality, in terms of mathematically precise sets generated by document citations and accessible through the Social Science Citation Index. The document and author sets that encompass a scientific specialty are the basis for some interdependent citation matrices. The method of construction of these sets and matrices is illustrated through an application to the literature on invisible colleges

0.017578185 = product of:
  0.08789092 = sum of:
    0.08789092 = product of:
      0.17578185 = sum of:
        0.17578185 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17578185 = score(doc=1119,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20741826 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.8474753 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.016124073 = product of:
  0.08062036 = sum of:
    0.08062036 = weight(_text_:social in 554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08062036 = score(doc=554,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.44056937 = fieldWeight in 554, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=554)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Object

Social sciences citation index

0.016124073 = product of:
  0.08062036 = sum of:
    0.08062036 = weight(_text_:social in 4063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08062036 = score(doc=4063,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.44056937 = fieldWeight in 4063, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4063)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.012899259 = product of:
  0.06449629 = sum of:
    0.06449629 = weight(_text_:social in 5020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06449629 = score(doc=5020,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.3524555 = fieldWeight in 5020, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5020)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.011286851 = product of:
  0.056434255 = sum of:
    0.056434255 = weight(_text_:social in 7827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056434255 = score(doc=7827,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 7827, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7827)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.011286851 = product of:
  0.056434255 = sum of:
    0.056434255 = weight(_text_:social in 3571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056434255 = score(doc=3571,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 3571, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3571)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Object

Social Sciences Citation Index

0.011286851 = product of:
  0.056434255 = sum of:
    0.056434255 = weight(_text_:social in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056434255 = score(doc=5130,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.009948011 = product of:
  0.049740054 = sum of:
    0.049740054 = product of:
      0.09948011 = sum of:
        0.09948011 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09948011 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

7. 2.2005 14:10:22

0.008995359 = product of:
  0.044976793 = sum of:
    0.044976793 = weight(_text_:technology in 1885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044976793 = score(doc=1885,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.32906836 = fieldWeight in 1885, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1885)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Comments on the affinity of Web technology and citation indexes and reviews the ISI service, Web of Science. Although still requiring refinement, it multiplies the effectiveness of an already effective search tool

0.008286436 = product of:
  0.04143218 = sum of:
    0.04143218 = product of:
      0.08286436 = sum of:
        0.08286436 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08286436 = score(doc=5127,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20741826 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.39950368 = fieldWeight in 5127, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5127)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Reviews a variety of perspectives on citation. Argues that citations have multiple articulations in that they inform our understanding of the sociocultural, cognitive, and textual aspects of scientific communication. Proposes 2 metatheoretical frameworks as a means of negotiating the interpretative differences which characterize the various discourse communities concerned with citation theory and practice

0.0062967516 = product of:
  0.03148376 = sum of:
    0.03148376 = weight(_text_:technology in 4259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03148376 = score(doc=4259,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 4259, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4259)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Discusses evaluation techniques as an integral part of science with the emphasis on evalution for policy purposes. Outlines early attempts to validate the use of biliometric indicators. Concludes that: best results are obtained by applying a variety of methods simultaneously; reliable results can be obtained from citation analysis for purely scientific subfields such as physics; and citation analysis tends to give unreliable results for technological subjects. Concludes that bibliometrics as a technique for determining policy should never be used on its own. Describes an evaluation method used for selecting research projects for financial support, as applied by STW, the technology branch of the Netherlands' research council, NWO

0.0037305038 = product of:
  0.01865252 = sum of:
    0.01865252 = product of:
      0.03730504 = sum of:
        0.03730504 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03730504 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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