Search (130 results, page 2 of 7)

0.018695224 = product of:
  0.09347612 = sum of:
    0.09347612 = weight(_text_:books in 4771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09347612 = score(doc=4771,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.37758467 = fieldWeight in 4771, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4771)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Bibliometric evaluations of research outputs in the social sciences and humanities are challenging due to limitations associated with Web of Science data; however, background literature has shown that scholars are interested in stimulating improvements. We give special attention to book reviews processed by Web of Sciencehistory and literature journals, focusing on two types: Type I (i.e., reference to book only) and Type II (i.e., reference to book and other scholarly sources). Bibliometric data are collected and analyzed for a large set of reviews (1981-2009) to observe general publication patterns and patterns of citedness and co-citedness with books under review. Results show that reviews giving reference only to the book (Type I) are published more frequently while reviews referencing the book and other works (Type II) are more likely to be cited. The referencing culture of the humanities makes it difficult to understand patterns of co-citedness between books and review articles without further in-depth content analyses. Overall, citation counts to book reviews are typically low, but our data showed that they are scholarly and do play a role in the scholarly communication system. In the disciplines of history and literature, where book reviews are prominent, counting the number and type of reviews that a scholar produces throughout his/her career is a positive step forward in research evaluations. We propose a new set of journal quality indicators for the purpose of monitoring their scholarly influence.

0.018695224 = product of:
  0.09347612 = sum of:
    0.09347612 = weight(_text_:books in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09347612 = score(doc=3760,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.37758467 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Although news stories target the general public and are sometimes inaccurate, they can serve as sources of real-world information for researchers. This article investigates the extent to which academics exploit journalism using content and citation analyses of online BBC News stories cited by Scopus articles. A total of 27,234 Scopus-indexed publications have cited at least one BBC News story, with a steady annual increase. Citations from the arts and humanities (2.8% of publications in 2015) and social sciences (1.5%) were more likely than citations from medicine (0.1%) and science (<0.1%). Surprisingly, half of the sampled Scopus-cited science and technology (53%) and medicine and health (47%) stories were based on academic research, rather than otherwise unpublished information, suggesting that researchers have chosen a lower-quality secondary source for their citations. Nevertheless, the BBC News stories that were most frequently cited by Scopus, Google Books, and Wikipedia introduced new information from many different topics, including politics, business, economics, statistics, and reports about events. Thus, news stories are mediating real-world knowledge into the academic domain, a potential cause for concern.

0.018695224 = product of:
  0.09347612 = sum of:
    0.09347612 = weight(_text_:books in 4454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09347612 = score(doc=4454,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.37758467 = fieldWeight in 4454, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4454)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Because of a greater coverage of documentary sources in many languages that is greater than that of traditional bibliographic databases, Google Scholar is an ideal tool for examining the social sciences in non-Anglophone countries. We have therefore used it to study the scholarly output and impact of three scientific disciplines, management, economics, and sociology, in Spain and France, comparing some of the results with those retrieved with Scopus. Our findings show that scientific articles are the predominant form of scholarly communication in Google Scholar for our selected fields and countries. In addition, our results indicate that in Google Scholar the vernacular languages of each country are more used than English in all cases, but economics in France. The opposite occurs in Scopus, except for the case of sociology articles in France We also show that books receive on average more citations than other published documents in Google Scholar. Finally, we demonstrate that publishing in English is associated with greater scholarly impact, except for the case of France in Google Scholar for articles in sociology and books in the three fields.

0.018695224 = product of:
  0.09347612 = sum of:
    0.09347612 = weight(_text_:books in 4578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09347612 = score(doc=4578,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.37758467 = fieldWeight in 4578, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4578)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Just as citations to a book can be counted, so can that book's libcitations-the number of libraries in a consortium that hold it. These holdings counts per title can be obtained from the consortium's union catalog, such as OCLC's WorldCat. Librarians seeking to serve their customers well must be attuned to various kinds of merit in books. The result in WorldCat is a great variation in the libcitations particular books receive. The higher a title's count (or percentile), the more famous it is-either absolutely or within a subject class. Degree of fame also indicates cultural impact, allowing that further documentation of impact may be needed. Using WorldCat data, we illustrate high, medium, and low degrees of fame with 170 titles published during 1990-1995 or 2001-2006 and spanning the 10 main Dewey classes. We use their total libcitation counts or their counts from members of the Association of Research Libraries, or both, as of late 2011. Our analysis of their fame draws on the recognizability of their authors, the extent to which they and their authors are covered by Wikipedia, and whether they have movie or TV versions. Ordinal scales based on Wikipedia coverage and on libcitation counts are very significantly associated.

0.018507326 = product of:
  0.09253663 = sum of:
    0.09253663 = weight(_text_:books in 112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09253663 = score(doc=112,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.37378973 = fieldWeight in 112, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=112)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A bibliometric analysis of 1,456 articles appearing in Indian Library and Information Science journals between 1975 and 1985 revealed that the average rate of citations per article in the field was quite low. Books and journals were identified as the major categories of documents referred to in these articles and both were positively related. It is concluded that the increase in journal citations and rate of citations between 1975 and 1985 indicates that Indian Library and Information Science journals are now publishing a higher number of research-oriented articles in comparison with earlier years.

0.018507326 = product of:
  0.09253663 = sum of:
    0.09253663 = weight(_text_:books in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09253663 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.37378973 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Much informetric research is based on the analysis of the citations that authors make to the publications of other scholars and researchers, whose work they have used in their own articles and books. If such measures are to be useful for understanding scientific recognition and the ways in which scientific results build on earlier work, then an understanding of the motivations of the people doing the citing can be helpful in evaluating the validity of the research based on the citation analysis.

0.016655907 = product of:
  0.083279535 = sum of:
    0.083279535 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083279535 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20. 1.2007 17:02:22

0.016655907 = product of:
  0.083279535 = sum of:
    0.083279535 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083279535 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

18. 3.2014 19:13:22

0.015863424 = product of:
  0.079317115 = sum of:
    0.079317115 = weight(_text_:books in 355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079317115 = score(doc=355,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.3203912 = fieldWeight in 355, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=355)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Presents a quantitative anaylsis of 100 references retrieved on the information use and needs of humanities researchers, consisting of journal articles (57%), dissertations (26%), conference proceedings (11%) and books (6%). 3 journal titles were found to contribute more than a third of the articles on this subject. About 88% (23) of the dissertations are doctoral theses submitted to universities in the USA. about 51% of the retrieved items were published between 1980-1989 which form the peak of studies in this area and the situation stabilizes to an average of about 2 studies a year in the post 1990 years. The bulk of the studies is about characteirstics of information sources used and of these citation studies are predominant. Information needs and use in the field of literature, history and music (62%, 41) constitute the majority of studies in this area. The review studies come under 3 categories; the library and humanities scholars; research and information seeking behaviour of the humanities researchers and the characteristics of sources used

0.015863424 = product of:
  0.079317115 = sum of:
    0.079317115 = weight(_text_:books in 2790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079317115 = score(doc=2790,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.3203912 = fieldWeight in 2790, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2790)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Traces the origin of the term librametry. Shows how librametry has helped Ranganathan to develop the staff formula for different libraries, and it can help in decision making relating to the establishment of rural and branch libraries; dormitory and service libraries. His maintenance of statistics of various library activities showed the growth pattern of library collection, use of the collection by users, busy and very busy hours in the circulations and reference sections, and so on. He also developed a method for optimal procurement of books for every department in the university. Ranganathan also showed statistically that on average Colon class numbers are shorter than DC class numbers. With the passage of time bibliometrics overshadowed librametrics. Ranganathan did not define librametrics, neither he isolated its components. The lacunae have been filled in this article. It has also been shown that a substantial part of librametrics is occupied by bibliometrics.

0.015863424 = product of:
  0.079317115 = sum of:
    0.079317115 = weight(_text_:books in 4985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079317115 = score(doc=4985,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.3203912 = fieldWeight in 4985, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4985)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study is concerned with differences in referencing patterns between book literature and periodical publications. Four indicators, the mean reference rate per page, the percentage of references to Web of Science journal literature, the mean reference age, and Price Index, were applied to analyze the reference patterns of three publication types: books, book chapter articles and journal articles. References of publications indexed in Web of Science Core Collection were analyzed for two periods (2005-2009, 2010-2013) and across 15 disciplines. Journal article authors cite more recent references and more references from serial publications than monograph authors. The difference between the sciences and the SSH is as obvious as the difference between periodical and non-serial publications. However, the reference patterns of social sciences are much more similar to science fields than humanities, especially for monographs. The subject characteristics of reference pattern are strongly affected by publication types. Furthermore, journal publications have stronger associations between ageing indicators and the share of WoS journal references than monographs.

0.014956179 = product of:
  0.0747809 = sum of:
    0.0747809 = weight(_text_:books in 863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0747809 = score(doc=863,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.30206773 = fieldWeight in 863, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=863)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - Citation analysis is one of the popular methods employed for identification of core documents and complex relationship between citing and cited documents for a particular scholarly community in a geographical proximity. The present citation study is to understand the information needs, use pattern and use behaviour of library and information science researchers particularly engaged in the field of knowledge organization. Design/methodology/approach - The data relating to all the references appended to the articles during the period under study were collected and tabulated. Findings - Citation analysis of the journal for the period under study reveals that the average number of citations is around 21 per article. The major source of information is books and documents published during the later half of the century (1982-91). Authors from the USA, UK and Germany are the major contributors to the journal. India is ranked seventh in terms of contributions. Research limitations/implications - The study undertaken is limited to nine years, i.e. 1993-2001. The model citation index of the journal is analyzed using the first seven core authors. Practical implications - Ranking of periodicals helps to identify the core periodicals cited in the journal Knowledge Organization. Ranking of authors is done to know the eminent personalities in the subject, whose work is used by the authors to refine their ideas on the subject or topic. Originality/value - Model Citation Index for the first seven most cited authors was worked out and it reveals the historical relationship of cited and citing documents. This model citation index can be used to identify, the most cited authors as researchers currently working on special problems, to determine whether a paper has been cited, whether there has been a review of a subject, whether a concept has been applied, a theory confirmed or a method improved.

Content

Vgl..: Burton, P.F.: On reading "The banning of books in libraries". In: Library review. 56(2007) no.3, S.197-199.

0.01321952 = product of:
  0.0660976 = sum of:
    0.0660976 = weight(_text_:books in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0660976 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.2669927 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.01321952 = product of:
  0.0660976 = sum of:
    0.0660976 = weight(_text_:books in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0660976 = score(doc=1201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.2669927 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study analyses the coverage of seven free-access bibliographic databases (Crossref, Dimensions-non-subscription version, Google Scholar, Lens, Microsoft Academic, Scilit, and Semantic Scholar) to identify the potential reasons that might cause the exclusion of scholarly documents and how they could influence coverage. To do this, 116 k randomly selected bibliographic records from Crossref were used as a baseline. API endpoints and web scraping were used to query each database. The results show that coverage differences are mainly caused by the way each service builds their databases. While classic bibliographic databases ingest almost the exact same content from Crossref (Lens and Scilit miss 0.1% and 0.2% of the records, respectively), academic search engines present lower coverage (Google Scholar does not find: 9.8%, Semantic Scholar: 10%, and Microsoft Academic: 12%). Coverage differences are mainly attributed to external factors, such as web accessibility and robot exclusion policies (39.2%-46%), and internal requirements that exclude secondary content (6.5%-11.6%). In the case of Dimensions, the only classic bibliographic database with the lowest coverage (7.6%), internal selection criteria such as the indexation of full books instead of book chapters (65%) and the exclusion of secondary content (15%) are the main motives of missing publications.

0.011777506 = product of:
  0.05888753 = sum of:
    0.05888753 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05888753 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 5275, 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=5275)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 16:20:22

0.011777506 = product of:
  0.05888753 = sum of:
    0.05888753 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05888753 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = 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)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.011103938 = product of:
  0.055519693 = sum of:
    0.055519693 = weight(_text_:22 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055519693 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5092, 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=5092)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Presents a list of 53 periodicals in 22 subject fields which regularly provide bibliographies of theses, research in progress and patents in their particular subject field. The fields of business, economics, history and literature have most periodical listings of dissertations and theses. Also lists 63 periodicals in 25 sub-disciplines which provide rankings or ratings. Rankings and ratings information predominates in the fields of business, sports and games, finance and banking, and library and information science

0.011103938 = product of:
  0.055519693 = sum of:
    0.055519693 = weight(_text_:22 in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055519693 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 80, 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=80)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Report presented at the 16th National Indian Association of Special Libraries and Information Centres Seminar Special Interest Group Meeting on Informatrics in Bombay, 19-22 Dec 94

0.011103938 = product of:
  0.055519693 = sum of:
    0.055519693 = weight(_text_:22 in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055519693 = score(doc=673,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 673, 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=673)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Library focus. 13/14(1995/96), S.22-25

0.011103938 = product of:
  0.055519693 = sum of:
    0.055519693 = weight(_text_:22 in 3688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055519693 = score(doc=3688,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3688, 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=3688)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:12:28