Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.03 
    0.027196566 = product of:
  0.10878626 = sum of:
    0.10878626 = sum of:
      0.070654765 = weight(_text_:management in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.070654765 = score(doc=994,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.44688427 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
      0.038131498 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038131498 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
    Source
    Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.6, S.1451-1464
  2. Ma, N.; Guan, J.; Zhao, Y.: Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis (2008) 0.02 
    0.01836472 = product of:
  0.07345888 = sum of:
    0.07345888 = sum of:
      0.035327382 = weight(_text_:management in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035327382 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 2064, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2064)
      0.038131498 = weight(_text_:22 in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038131498 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2064, 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=2064)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    31. 7.2008 14:22:05
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.2, S.800-810
  3. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.01 
    0.0127105005 = product of:
  0.050842002 = sum of:
    0.050842002 = product of:
      0.101684004 = sum of:
        0.101684004 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.101684004 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  4. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.01 
    0.011234601 = product of:
  0.044938404 = sum of:
    0.044938404 = product of:
      0.08987681 = sum of:
        0.08987681 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08987681 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  5. He, Y.; Hui, S.C.: Mining a web database for author cocitation analysis (2002) 0.01 
    0.01030382 = product of:
  0.04121528 = sum of:
    0.04121528 = product of:
      0.08243056 = sum of:
        0.08243056 = weight(_text_:management in 2584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08243056 = score(doc=2584,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.521365 = fieldWeight in 2584, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2584)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 38(2002) no.4, S.491-508
  6. Vaughan, L.; Shaw, D.: Web citation data for impact assessment : a comparison of four science disciplines (2005) 0.01 
    0.008731907 = product of:
  0.03492763 = sum of:
    0.03492763 = weight(_text_:services in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492763 = score(doc=3880,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 3880, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3880)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  7. Vaughan, L.; Shaw , D.: Bibliographic and Web citations : what Is the difference? (2003) 0.01 
    0.008731907 = product of:
  0.03492763 = sum of:
    0.03492763 = weight(_text_:services in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492763 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  8. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01 
    0.006740761 = product of:
  0.026963044 = sum of:
    0.026963044 = product of:
      0.053926088 = sum of:
        0.053926088 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053926088 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = 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(1/4)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  9. Marion, L.S.; McCain, K.W.: Contrasting views of software engineering journals : author cocitation choices and indexer vocabulary assignments (2001) 0.01 
    0.0063738357 = product of:
  0.025495343 = sum of:
    0.025495343 = product of:
      0.050990686 = sum of:
        0.050990686 = weight(_text_:management in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050990686 = score(doc=5767,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.32251096 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  10. Lai, K.-K.; Wu, S.-J.: Using the patent co-citation approach to establish a new patent classification system (2005) 0.01 
    0.0063738357 = product of:
  0.025495343 = sum of:
    0.025495343 = product of:
      0.050990686 = sum of:
        0.050990686 = weight(_text_:management in 1013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050990686 = score(doc=1013,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.32251096 = fieldWeight in 1013, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The paper proposes a new approach to create a patent classification system to replace the IPC or UPC system for conducting patent analysis and management. The new approach is based on co-citation analysis of bibliometrics. The traditional approach for management of patents, which is based on either the IPC or UPC, is too general to meet the needs of specific industries. In addition, some patents are placed in incorrect categories, making it difficult for enterprises to carry out R&D planning, technology positioning, patent strategy-making and technology forecasting. Therefore, it is essential to develop a patent classification system that is adaptive to the characteristics of a specific industry. The analysis of this approach is divided into three phases. Phase I selects appropriate databases to conduct patent searches according to the subject and objective of this study and then select basic patents. Phase II uses the co-cited frequency of the basic patent pairs to assess their similarity. Phase III uses factor analysis to establish a classification system and assess the efficiency of the proposed approach. The main contribution of this approach is to develop a patent classification system based on patent similarities to assist patent manager in understanding the basic patents for a specific industry, the relationships among categories of technologies and the evolution of a technology category.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.2, S.313-330
  11. Kurtz, M.J.; Eichhorn, G.; Accomazzi, A.; Grant, C.; Demleitner, M.; Henneken, E.; Murray, S.S.: ¬The effect of use and access on citations (2005) 0.01 
    0.005887897 = product of:
  0.023551589 = sum of:
    0.023551589 = product of:
      0.047103178 = sum of:
        0.047103178 = weight(_text_:management in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047103178 = score(doc=1064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.29792285 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.6, S.1395-1402
  12. Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001) 0.01 
    0.0055608437 = product of:
  0.022243375 = sum of:
    0.022243375 = product of:
      0.04448675 = sum of:
        0.04448675 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04448675 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    16.12.2001 14:01:22
  13. Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006) 0.01 
    0.0055608437 = product of:
  0.022243375 = sum of:
    0.022243375 = product of:
      0.04448675 = sum of:
        0.04448675 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04448675 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:20:01
  14. 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) 0.01 
    0.00515191 = product of:
  0.02060764 = sum of:
    0.02060764 = product of:
      0.04121528 = sum of:
        0.04121528 = weight(_text_:management in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04121528 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.6, S.1403-1418
  15. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.00 
    0.004766437 = product of:
  0.019065749 = sum of:
    0.019065749 = product of:
      0.038131498 = sum of:
        0.038131498 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038131498 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
  16. Tho, Q.T.; Hui, S.C.; Fong, A.C.M.: ¬A citation-based document retrieval system for finding research expertise (2007) 0.00 
    0.004415923 = product of:
  0.017663691 = sum of:
    0.017663691 = product of:
      0.035327382 = sum of:
        0.035327382 = weight(_text_:management in 956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035327382 = score(doc=956,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 956, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=956)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.1, S.248-264
  17. Sidiropoulos, A.; Manolopoulos, Y.: ¬A new perspective to automatically rank scientific conferences using digital libraries (2005) 0.00 
    0.004415923 = product of:
  0.017663691 = sum of:
    0.017663691 = product of:
      0.035327382 = sum of:
        0.035327382 = weight(_text_:management in 1011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035327382 = score(doc=1011,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 1011, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1011)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.2, S.289-312
  18. Marshakova-Shaikevich, I.: Bibliometric maps of field of science (2005) 0.00 
    0.004415923 = product of:
  0.017663691 = sum of:
    0.017663691 = product of:
      0.035327382 = sum of:
        0.035327382 = weight(_text_:management in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035327382 = score(doc=1069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.6, S.1534-1547
  19. Lin, X.; White, H.D.; Buzydlowski, J.: Real-time author co-citation mapping for online searching (2003) 0.00 
    0.004415923 = product of:
  0.017663691 = sum of:
    0.017663691 = product of:
      0.035327382 = sum of:
        0.035327382 = weight(_text_:management in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035327382 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 39(2003) no.5, S.689-706
  20. Joint, N.: Bemused by bibliometrics : using citation analysis to evaluate research quality (2008) 0.00 
    0.0036799356 = product of:
  0.014719742 = sum of:
    0.014719742 = product of:
      0.029439485 = sum of:
        0.029439485 = weight(_text_:management in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029439485 = score(doc=1900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the way in which library and information science (LIS) issues have been handled in the formulation of recent UK Higher Education policy concerned with research quality evaluation. Design/methodology/approach - A chronological review of decision making about digital rights arrangements for the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and of recent announcements about the new shape of metrics-based assessment in the Research Excellence Framework, which supersedes the RAE. Against this chronological framework, the likely nature of LIS practitioner reactions to the flow of decision making is suggested. Findings - It was found that a weak grasp of LIS issues by decision makers undermines the process whereby effective research evaluation models are created. LIS professional opinion should be sampled before key decisions are made. Research limitations/implications - This paper makes no sophisticated comments on the complex research issues underlying advanced bibliometric research evaluation models. It does point out that sophisticated and expensive bibliometric consultancies arrive at many conclusions about metrics-based research assessment that are common knowledge amongst LIS practitioners. Practical implications - Practical difficulties arise when one announces a decision to move to a new and specific type of research evaluation indicator before one has worked out anything very specific about that indicator. Originality/value - In this paper, the importance of information management issues to the mainstream issues of government and public administration is underlined. The most valuable conclusion of this paper is that, because LIS issues are now at the heart of democratic decision making, LIS practitioners and professionals should be given some sort of role in advising on such matters.

Authors

Types

  • a 21
  • el 1
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications