Search (41 results, page 2 of 3)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Morris, S.A.; Yen, G.; Wu, Z.; Asnake, B.: Time line visualization of research fronts (2003) 0.01
    0.011047398 = product of:
      0.022094795 = sum of:
        0.022094795 = product of:
          0.04418959 = sum of:
            0.04418959 = weight(_text_:b in 1452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04418959 = score(doc=1452,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = queryNorm
                0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 1452, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1452)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  2. Hellqvist, B.: Referencing in the humanities and its implications for citation analysis (2010) 0.01
    0.011047398 = product of:
      0.022094795 = sum of:
        0.022094795 = product of:
          0.04418959 = sum of:
            0.04418959 = weight(_text_:b in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04418959 = score(doc=3329,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = queryNorm
                0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  3. Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001) 0.01
    0.010792375 = product of:
      0.02158475 = sum of:
        0.02158475 = product of:
          0.0431695 = sum of:
            0.0431695 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0431695 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    16.12.2001 14:01:22
  4. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.01
    0.010792375 = product of:
      0.02158475 = sum of:
        0.02158475 = product of:
          0.0431695 = sum of:
            0.0431695 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0431695 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    17.11.2020 12:22:59
  5. Snyder, H.; Cronin, B.; Davenport, E.: What's the use of citation? : Citation analysis as a literature topic in selected disciplines of the social sciences (1995) 0.01
    0.009469198 = product of:
      0.018938396 = sum of:
        0.018938396 = product of:
          0.037876792 = sum of:
            0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037876792 = score(doc=1825,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = queryNorm
                0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  6. Meho, L.I.; Sonnenwald, D.H.: Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance : a case study of Kurdish scholarship (2000) 0.01
    0.009469198 = product of:
      0.018938396 = sum of:
        0.018938396 = product of:
          0.037876792 = sum of:
            0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037876792 = score(doc=4382,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = queryNorm
                0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between citation ranking and peer evaluation in assessing senior faculty research performance. Other studies typically derive their peer evaluation data directly from referees, often in the form of ranking. This study uses two additional sources of peer evaluation data: citation contant analysis and book review content analysis. 2 main questions are investigated: (a) To what degree does citation ranking correlate with data from citation content analysis, book reviews and peer ranking? (b) Is citation ranking a valif evaluative indicator of research performance of senior faculty members? This study shows that citation ranking can provide a valid indicator for comparative evaluation of senior faculty research performance
  7. Chen, C.; Paul, R.J.; O'Keefe, B.: Fitting the Jigsaw of citation : information visualization in domain analysis (2001) 0.01
    0.009469198 = product of:
      0.018938396 = sum of:
        0.018938396 = product of:
          0.037876792 = sum of:
            0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037876792 = score(doc=5766,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = queryNorm
                0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  8. Aguillo, I.F.; Granadino, B.; Ortega, J.L.; Prieto, J.A.: Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetrics indicators (2006) 0.01
    0.009469198 = product of:
      0.018938396 = sum of:
        0.018938396 = product of:
          0.037876792 = sum of:
            0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037876792 = score(doc=5898,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = queryNorm
                0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5898, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5898)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  9. Daquino, M.; Peroni, S.; Shotton, D.; Colavizza, G.; Ghavimi, B.; Lauscher, A.; Mayr, P.; Romanello, M.; Zumstein, P.: ¬The OpenCitations Data Model (2020) 0.01
    0.009469198 = product of:
      0.018938396 = sum of:
        0.018938396 = product of:
          0.037876792 = sum of:
            0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 38) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037876792 = score(doc=38,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = queryNorm
                0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 38, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=38)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  10. Araújo, P.C. de; Gutierres Castanha, R.C.; Hjoerland, B.: Citation indexing and indexes (2021) 0.01
    0.009469198 = product of:
      0.018938396 = sum of:
        0.018938396 = product of:
          0.037876792 = sum of:
            0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037876792 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = queryNorm
                0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  11. Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996) 0.01
    0.009250606 = product of:
      0.018501213 = sum of:
        0.018501213 = product of:
          0.037002426 = sum of:
            0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037002426 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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
  12. Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998) 0.01
    0.009250606 = product of:
      0.018501213 = sum of:
        0.018501213 = product of:
          0.037002426 = sum of:
            0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037002426 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:33:24
  13. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.01
    0.009250606 = product of:
      0.018501213 = sum of:
        0.018501213 = product of:
          0.037002426 = sum of:
            0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037002426 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
  14. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.01
    0.009250606 = product of:
      0.018501213 = sum of:
        0.018501213 = product of:
          0.037002426 = sum of:
            0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037002426 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
  15. Ma, N.; Guan, J.; Zhao, Y.: Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis (2008) 0.01
    0.009250606 = product of:
      0.018501213 = sum of:
        0.018501213 = product of:
          0.037002426 = sum of:
            0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037002426 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    31. 7.2008 14:22:05
  16. Ding, Y.; Zhang, G.; Chambers, T.; Song, M.; Wang, X.; Zhai, C.: Content-based citation analysis : the next generation of citation analysis (2014) 0.01
    0.009250606 = product of:
      0.018501213 = sum of:
        0.018501213 = product of:
          0.037002426 = sum of:
            0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037002426 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = 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
  17. Johnson, B.; Oppenheim, C.: How socially connected are citers to those that they cite? (2007) 0.01
    0.007890998 = product of:
      0.015781997 = sum of:
        0.015781997 = product of:
          0.031563994 = sum of:
            0.031563994 = weight(_text_:b in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.031563994 = score(doc=839,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = queryNorm
                0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  18. Leydesdorff, L.; Moya-Anegón, F.de; Guerrero-Bote, V.P.: Journal maps on the basis of Scopus data : a comparison with the Journal Citation Reports of the ISI (2010) 0.01
    0.007890998 = product of:
      0.015781997 = sum of:
        0.015781997 = product of:
          0.031563994 = sum of:
            0.031563994 = weight(_text_:b in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.031563994 = score(doc=3335,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = queryNorm
                0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Using the Scopus dataset (1996-2007) a grand matrix of aggregated journal-journal citations was constructed. This matrix can be compared in terms of the network structures with the matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI). Because the Scopus database contains a larger number of journals and covers the humanities, one would expect richer maps. However, the matrix is in this case sparser than in the case of the ISI data. This is because of (a) the larger number of journals covered by Scopus and (b) the historical record of citations older than 10 years contained in the ISI database. When the data is highly structured, as in the case of large journals, the maps are comparable, although one may have to vary a threshold (because of the differences in densities). In the case of interdisciplinary journals and journals in the social sciences and humanities, the new database does not add a lot to what is possible with the ISI databases.
  19. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.; Cardona, M.: Reference standards and reference multipliers for the comparison of the citation impact of papers published in different time periods (2010) 0.01
    0.007890998 = product of:
      0.015781997 = sum of:
        0.015781997 = product of:
          0.031563994 = sum of:
            0.031563994 = weight(_text_:b in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.031563994 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = queryNorm
                0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In this study, reference standards and reference multipliers are suggested as a means to compare the citation impact of earlier research publications in physics (from the period of "Little Science" in the early 20th century) with that of contemporary papers (from the period of "Big Science," beginning around 1960). For the development of time-specific reference standards, the authors determined (a) the mean citation rates of papers in selected physics journals as well as (b) the mean citation rates of all papers in physics published in 1900 (Little Science) and in 2000 (Big Science); this was accomplished by relying on the processes of field-specific standardization in bibliometry. For the sake of developing reference multipliers with which the citation impact of earlier papers can be adjusted to the citation impact of contemporary papers, they combined the reference standards calculated for 1900 and 2000 into their ratio. The use of reference multipliers is demonstrated by means of two examples involving the time adjusted h index values for Max Planck and Albert Einstein.
  20. White, H.D.; Wellman, B.; Nazer, N.: Does Citation Reflect Social Structure? : Longitudinal Evidence From the "Globenet" Interdisciplinary Research Group (2004) 0.01
    0.0063127987 = product of:
      0.012625597 = sum of:
        0.012625597 = product of:
          0.025251195 = sum of:
            0.025251195 = weight(_text_:b in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.025251195 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045518078 = queryNorm
                0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)