Search (41 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001) 0.04 
    0.0395898 = product of:
  0.19794899 = sum of:
    0.19794899 = sum of:
      0.15683112 = weight(_text_:index in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15683112 = score(doc=6920,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04335484 = queryNorm
          0.82782143 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
      0.041117873 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041117873 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15182126 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04335484 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Over a 35-year period, Irving H. Sher played a critical role in the development and implementation of the Science Citation Index and other ISI products. Trained as a biochemist, statistician, and linguist, Sher brought a unique combination of talents to ISI as Director of Quality Control and Director of Research and Development. His talents as a teacher and mentor evoked loyalty. He was a particularly inventive but self-taught programmer. In addition to the SCI, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index,
    Date
    16.12.2001 14:01:22
    Object
    Science Citation Index
    Social Sciences Citation Index
    Arts and Humanities Citation Index
  2. Sombatsompop, N.; Markpin, T.: Making an equality of ISI impact factors for different subject fields (2005) 0.04 
    0.03685167 = product of:
  0.09212917 = sum of:
    0.044602163 = weight(_text_:t in 3467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044602163 = score(doc=3467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 3467, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3467)
    0.047527004 = product of:
      0.09505401 = sum of:
        0.09505401 = weight(_text_:index in 3467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09505401 = score(doc=3467,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.50173557 = fieldWeight in 3467, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The journal impact factors, published by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI; Philadelphia, PA), are widely known and are used to evaluate overall journal quality and the quality of the papers published therein. However, when making comparisons between subject fields, the work of individual scientists and their research institutions as reflected in their articles' ISI impact factors can become meaningless. This inequality will remain as long as ISI impact factors are employed as an instrument to assess the quality of international research. Here we propose a new mathematical index entitled Impact Factor PointAverage (IFPA) for assessment of the quality of individual research work in different subject fields. The index is established based an a normalization of differences in impact factors, rankings, and number of journal titles in different subject fields. The proposed index is simple and enables the ISI impact factors to be used with equality, especially when evaluating the quality of research work in different subject fields.
  3. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.02 
    0.02094437 = product of:
  0.104721844 = sum of:
    0.104721844 = sum of:
      0.054879453 = weight(_text_:index in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054879453 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04335484 = queryNorm
          0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.049842395 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049842395 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15182126 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04335484 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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
  4. Vanclay, J.K.: On the robustness of the h-index (2007) 0.01 
    0.014634522 = product of:
  0.07317261 = sum of:
    0.07317261 = product of:
      0.14634521 = sum of:
        0.14634521 = weight(_text_:index in 576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14634521 = score(doc=576,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.7724724 = fieldWeight in 576, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=576)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The h-index (Hirsch, 2005) is robust, remaining relatively unaffected by errors in the long tails of the citations-rank distribution, such as typographic errors that short-change frequently cited articles and create bogus additional records. This robustness, and the ease with which h-indices can be verified, support the use of a Hirsch-type index over alternatives such as the journal impact factor. These merits of the h-index apply both to individuals and to journals.
  5. Leydesdorff, L.: On the normalization and visualization of author co-citation data : Salton's Cosine versus the Jaccard index (2008) 0.01 
    0.013442667 = product of:
  0.067213334 = sum of:
    0.067213334 = product of:
      0.13442667 = sum of:
        0.13442667 = weight(_text_:index in 1341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13442667 = score(doc=1341,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.7095612 = fieldWeight in 1341, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The debate about which similarity measure one should use for the normalization in the case of Author Co-citation Analysis (ACA) is further complicated when one distinguishes between the symmetrical co-citation - or, more generally, co-occurrence - matrix and the underlying asymmetrical citation - occurrence - matrix. In the Web environment, the approach of retrieving original citation data is often not feasible. In that case, one should use the Jaccard index, but preferentially after adding the number of total citations (i.e., occurrences) on the main diagonal. Unlike Salton's cosine and the Pearson correlation, the Jaccard index abstracts from the shape of the distributions and focuses only on the intersection and the sum of the two sets. Since the correlations in the co-occurrence matrix may be spurious, this property of the Jaccard index can be considered as an advantage in this case.
    Object
    Salton's Cosine index
    Jaccard index
  6. McVeigh, M.E.: Citation indexes and the Web of Science (2009) 0.01 
    0.013442667 = product of:
  0.067213334 = sum of:
    0.067213334 = product of:
      0.13442667 = sum of:
        0.13442667 = weight(_text_:index in 3848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13442667 = score(doc=3848,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.7095612 = fieldWeight in 3848, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3848)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The Web of Science, an online database of bibliographic information produced by Thomson Reuters- draws its real value from the scholarly citation index at its core. By indexing the cited references from each paper as a separate part of the bibliographic data, a citation index creates a pathway by which a paper can be linked backward in time to the body of work that preceded it, as well as linked forward in time to its scholarly descendants. This entry provides a brief history of the development of the citation index, its core functionalities, and the way these unique data are provided to users through the Web of Science.
    Object
    Science Citation Index
    Social Sciences Citation Index
    Arts and Humanities Citation Index
  7. Burrell, Q.L.: Will this paper ever be cited? (2002) 0.01 
    0.01189391 = product of:
  0.05946955 = sum of:
    0.05946955 = weight(_text_:t in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05946955 = score(doc=3183,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.34819782 = fieldWeight in 3183, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3183)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    A recently proposed stochastic model to describe the citation process in the presence of obsolescence is used to answer the question: If a paper has not been cited by time t after its publication, what is the probability that it will ever be cited?
  8. Neuhaus, C.; Daniel, H.-D.: Data sources for performing citation analysis : an overview (2008) 0.01 
    0.011089636 = product of:
  0.05544818 = sum of:
    0.05544818 = product of:
      0.11089636 = sum of:
        0.11089636 = weight(_text_:index in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11089636 = score(doc=1735,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.5853582 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Object
    Science citation index
    Social sciences citation index
    Arts and humanities citation index
  9. Bradshaw, S.; Hammond, K.: Using citations in facilitate precise indexing and automatic index creation in collections of research papers (2001) 0.01 
    0.010975891 = product of:
  0.054879453 = sum of:
    0.054879453 = product of:
      0.109758906 = sum of:
        0.109758906 = weight(_text_:index in 3803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109758906 = score(doc=3803,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.5793543 = fieldWeight in 3803, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3803)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  10. Bensman, S.J.: Distributional differences of the impact factor in the sciences versus the social sciences : an analysis of the probabilistic structure of the 2005 journal citation reports (2008) 0.01 
    0.010975891 = product of:
  0.054879453 = sum of:
    0.054879453 = product of:
      0.109758906 = sum of:
        0.109758906 = weight(_text_:index in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109758906 = score(doc=1953,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.5793543 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This paper examines the probability structure of the 2005 Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) Journal Citation Reports (JCR) by analyzing the Impact Factor distributions of their journals. The distribution of the SCI journals corresponded with a distribution generally modeled by the negative binomial distribution, whereas the SSCI distribution fit the Poisson distribution modeling random, rare events. Both Impact Factor distributions were positively skewed - the SCI much more so than the SSCI - indicating excess variance. One of the causes of this excess variance was that the journals highest in the Impact Factor in both JCRs tended to class in subject categories well funded by the National Institutes of Health. The main reason for the SCI Impact Factor distribution being more skewed than the SSCI one was that review journals defining disciplinary paradigms play a much more important role in the sciences than in the social sciences.
    Object
    Science Citation Index
    Social Sciences Citation Index
  11. Brody, T.; Harnad, S.; Carr, L.: Earlier Web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact (2006) 0.01 
    0.010407171 = product of:
  0.052035857 = sum of:
    0.052035857 = weight(_text_:t in 165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052035857 = score(doc=165,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.30467308 = fieldWeight in 165, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=165)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  12. González, L.; Campanario, J.M.: Structure of the impact factor of journals included in the Social Sciences Citation Index : citations from documents labeled "Editorial Material" (2007) 0.01 
    0.009505401 = product of:
  0.047527004 = sum of:
    0.047527004 = product of:
      0.09505401 = sum of:
        0.09505401 = weight(_text_:index in 75) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09505401 = score(doc=75,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.50173557 = fieldWeight in 75, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=75)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    We investigated how citations from documents labeled by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) as "editorial material" contribute to the impact factor of academic journals in which they were published. Our analysis is based on records corresponding to the documents classified by the ISI as editorial material published in journals covered by the Social Sciences Citation Index between 1999 and 2003 (50,273 records corresponding to editorial material published in 2,374 journals). The results appear to rule out widespread manipulation of the impact factor by academic journals publishing large amounts of editorial material with many citations to the journal itself as a strategy to increase the impact factor.
    Object
    Social Sciences Citation Index
  13. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.01 
    0.009398371 = product of:
  0.046991855 = sum of:
    0.046991855 = product of:
      0.09398371 = sum of:
        0.09398371 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09398371 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15182126 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  14. Leydesdorff, L.: Dynamic and evolutionary updates of classificatory schemes in scientific journal structures (2002) 0.01 
    0.009054649 = product of:
  0.04527324 = sum of:
    0.04527324 = product of:
      0.09054648 = sum of:
        0.09054648 = weight(_text_:index in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09054648 = score(doc=1249,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.4779429 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
    Object
    Science Citation Index
  15. Brooks, T.A.: How good are the best papers of JASIS? (2000) 0.01 
    0.008920433 = product of:
  0.044602163 = sum of:
    0.044602163 = weight(_text_:t in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044602163 = score(doc=4593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Content
    Top by numbers of citations: (1) Saracevic, T. et al.: A study of information seeking and retrieving I-III (1988); (2) Bates, M.: Information search tactics (1979); (3) Cooper, W.S.: On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness (1973); (4) Marcus, R.S.: A experimental comparison of the effectiveness of computers and humans as search intermediaries (1983); (4) Fidel, R.: Online searching styles (1984)
  16. Chen, C.; Cribbin, T.; Macredie, R.; Morar, S.: Visualizing and tracking the growth of competing paradigms : two case studies (2002) 0.01 
    0.008920433 = product of:
  0.044602163 = sum of:
    0.044602163 = weight(_text_:t in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044602163 = score(doc=602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 602, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=602)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  17. Prime-Claverie, C.; Beigbeder, M.; Lafouge, T.: Transposition of the cocitation method with a view to classifying Web pages (2004) 0.01 
    0.008920433 = product of:
  0.044602163 = sum of:
    0.044602163 = weight(_text_:t in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044602163 = score(doc=3095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 3095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3095)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  18. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.01 
    0.008307065 = product of:
  0.041535325 = sum of:
    0.041535325 = product of:
      0.08307065 = sum of:
        0.08307065 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08307065 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15182126 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  19. Leydesdorff, L.: Visualization of the citation impact environments of scientific journals : an online mapping exercise (2007) 0.01 
    0.007921169 = product of:
  0.03960584 = sum of:
    0.03960584 = product of:
      0.07921168 = sum of:
        0.07921168 = weight(_text_:index in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07921168 = score(doc=82,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.418113 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Aggregated journal-journal citation networks based on the Journal Citation Reports 2004 of the Science Citation Index (5,968 journals) and the Social Science Citation Index (1,712 journals) are made accessible from the perspective of any of these journals. A vector-space model Is used for normalization, and the results are brought online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr04 as input files for the visualization program Pajek. The user is thus able to analyze the citation environment in terms of links and graphs. Furthermore, the local impact of a journal is defined as its share of the total citations in the specific journal's citation environments; the vertical size of the nodes is varied proportionally to this citation impact. The horizontal size of each node can be used to provide the same information after correction for within-journal (self-)citations. In the "citing" environment, the equivalents of this measure can be considered as a citation activity index which maps how the relevant journal environment is perceived by the collective of authors of a given journal. As a policy application, the mechanism of Interdisciplinary developments among the sciences is elaborated for the case of nanotechnology journals.
  20. Aguillo, I.F.; Granadino, B.; Ortega, J.L.; Prieto, J.A.: Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetrics indicators (2006) 0.01 
    0.007761127 = product of:
  0.038805634 = sum of:
    0.038805634 = product of:
      0.07761127 = sum of:
        0.07761127 = weight(_text_:index in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07761127 = score(doc=5898,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 5898, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5898)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    To test feasibility of cybermetric indicators for describing and ranking university activities as shown in their Web sites, a large set of 9,330 institutions worldwide was compiled and analyzed. Using search engines' advanced features, size (number of pages), visibility (number of external inlinks), and number of rich files (pdf, ps, doc, ppt, and As formats) were obtained for each of the institutional domains of the universities. We found a statistically significant correlation between a Web ranking built on a combination of Webometric data and other university rankings based on bibliometric and other indicators. Results show that cybermetric measures could be useful for reflecting the contribution of technologically oriented institutions, increasing the visibility of developing countries, and improving the rankings based on Science Citation Index (SCI) data with known biases.
    Object
    Science Citation Index

Authors

Types

  • a 40
  • el 1
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications