Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023086209 = product of:
  0.046172418 = sum of:
    0.046172418 = product of:
      0.092344835 = sum of:
        0.092344835 = weight(_text_:work in 3308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.092344835 = score(doc=3308,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.4587988 = fieldWeight in 3308, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3308)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To determine influences on the production of a scientific article, the content of the article must be studied. We examined articles in biogeography and found that most of the influence is not cited, specific types of articles that are influential are cited while other types of that also are influential are not cited, and work that is uncited and seldom cited is used extensively. As a result, evaluative citation analysis should take uncited work into account.

0.017314656 = product of:
  0.03462931 = sum of:
    0.03462931 = product of:
      0.06925862 = sum of:
        0.06925862 = weight(_text_:work in 1015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06925862 = score(doc=1015,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.3440991 = fieldWeight in 1015, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1015)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.014859463 = product of:
  0.029718926 = sum of:
    0.029718926 = product of:
      0.059437852 = sum of:
        0.059437852 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059437852 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17.12.2013 11:02:22

0.012243311 = product of:
  0.024486622 = sum of:
    0.024486622 = product of:
      0.048973244 = sum of:
        0.048973244 = weight(_text_:work in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048973244 = score(doc=975,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study proposes a new framework for citation content analysis (CCA), for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content that can be used to better analyze the rich sociocultural context of research behavior. This framework could be considered the next generation of citation analysis. The authors briefly review the history and features of content analysis in traditional social sciences and its previous application in library and information science (LIS). Based on critical discussion of the theoretical necessity of a new method as well as the limits of citation analysis, the nature and purposes of CCA are discussed, and potential procedures to conduct CCA, including principles to identify the reference scope, a two-dimensional (citing and cited) and two-module (syntactic and semantic) codebook, are provided and described. Future work and implications are also suggested.

0.012243311 = product of:
  0.024486622 = sum of:
    0.024486622 = product of:
      0.048973244 = sum of:
        0.048973244 = weight(_text_:work in 1036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048973244 = score(doc=1036,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 1036, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1036)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Historically, co-citation models have been based only on bibliographic information. Full-text analysis offers the opportunity to significantly improve the quality of the signals upon which these co-citation models are based. In this work we study the effect of reference proximity on the accuracy of co-citation clusters. Using a corpus of 270,521 full text documents from 2007, we compare the results of traditional co-citation clustering using only the bibliographic information to results from co-citation clustering where proximity between reference pairs is factored into the pairwise relationships. We find that accounting for reference proximity from full text can increase the textual coherence (a measure of accuracy) of a co-citation cluster solution by up to 30% over the traditional approach based on bibliographic information.

0.011144597 = product of:
  0.022289194 = sum of:
    0.022289194 = product of:
      0.04457839 = sum of:
        0.04457839 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04457839 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1521, 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=1521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2014 16:52:04

0.010202759 = product of:
  0.020405518 = sum of:
    0.020405518 = product of:
      0.040811036 = sum of:
        0.040811036 = weight(_text_:work in 4628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040811036 = score(doc=4628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 4628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Literature practices represent the process leading up to the citation of a source, and consist of the selection, reading and citing of sources. The purpose of this paper is to explore possible factors that might influence researchers during this process and discover possible consequences of researchers' citation behaviours. Design/methodology/approach In this exploratory study, various factors which could influence literature practices were explored via a questionnaire amongst 112 researchers. Participants were first authors of articles published in 2016 in one of five different journals within the disciplines of experimental psychology, educational sciences and social psychology. Academic positions of the participants ranged from PhD student to full professor. Findings Frequencies and percentages showed that researchers seemed to be influenced in their literature practices by various factors, such as editors suggesting articles and motivation to cite. Additionally, a high percentage of researchers reported taking shortcuts when citing articles (e.g. using secondary citations and reading selectively). Logistic regression did not reveal a clear relationship between academic work experience and research practices. Practical implications Seeing that researchers seem to be influenced by a variety of factors in their literature practices, the scientific community might benefit from better citation practices and guidelines in order to provide more structure to the process of literature practices. Originality/value This paper provides first insights into researchers' literature practices. Possible reasons for problems with citation accuracy and replicating research findings are highlighted. Opportunities for further research on the topic of citation behaviours are presented.