Search (123 results, page 2 of 7)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Sin, S.-C.J.: International coauthorship and citation impact : a bibliometric study of six LIS journals, 1980-2008 (2011) 0.02 
    0.023291955 = product of:
  0.04658391 = sum of:
    0.04658391 = product of:
      0.09316782 = sum of:
        0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 4753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09316782 = score(doc=4753,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 4753, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4753)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    International collaborative papers are increasingly common in journals of many disciplines. These types of papers are often cited more frequently. To identify the coauthorship trends within Library and Information Science (LIS), this study analyzed 7,489 papers published in six leading publications (ARIST, IP&M, JAMIA, JASIST, MISQ, and Scientometrics) over the last three decades. Logistic regression tested the relationships between citations received and seven factors: authorship type, author's subregion, country income level, publication year, number of authors, document type, and journal title. The main authorship type since 1995 was national collaboration. It was also the dominant type for all publications studied except ARIST, and for all regions except Africa. For citation counts, the logistic regression analysis found all seven factors were significant. Papers that included international collaboration, Northern European authors, and authors in high-income nations had higher odds of being cited more. Papers from East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Southern Europe had lower odds than North American papers. As discussed in the bibliometric literature, Merton's Matthew Effect sheds light on the differential citation counts based on the authors' subregion. This researcher proposes geographies of invisible colleagues and a geographic scope effect to further investigate the relationships between author geographic affiliation and citation impact.
  2. Tuomaala, O.; Järvelin, K.; Vakkari, P.: Evolution of library and information science, 1965-2005 : content analysis of journal articles (2014) 0.02 
    0.023291955 = product of:
  0.04658391 = sum of:
    0.04658391 = product of:
      0.09316782 = sum of:
        0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 1309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09316782 = score(doc=1309,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 1309, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article first analyzes library and information science (LIS) research articles published in core LIS journals in 2005. It also examines the development of LIS from 1965 to 2005 in light of comparable data sets for 1965, 1985, and 2005. In both cases, the authors report (a) how the research articles are distributed by topic and (b) what approaches, research strategies, and methods were applied in the articles. In 2005, the largest research areas in LIS by this measure were information storage and retrieval, scientific communication, library and information-service activities, and information seeking. The same research areas constituted the quantitative core of LIS in the previous years since 1965. Information retrieval has been the most popular area of research over the years. The proportion of research on library and information-service activities decreased after 1985, but the popularity of information seeking and of scientific communication grew during the period studied. The viewpoint of research has shifted from library and information organizations to end users and development of systems for the latter. The proportion of empirical research strategies was high and rose over time, with the survey method being the single most important method. However, attention to evaluation and experiments increased considerably after 1985. Conceptual research strategies and system analysis, description, and design were quite popular, but declining. The most significant changes from 1965 to 2005 are the decreasing interest in library and information-service activities and the growth of research into information seeking and scientific communication.
  3. Kozak, M.; Iefremova, O.; Szkola, J.; Sas, D.: Do researchers provide public or institutional E-mail accounts as correspondence E-mails in scientific articles? (2015) 0.02 
    0.023291955 = product of:
  0.04658391 = sum of:
    0.04658391 = product of:
      0.09316782 = sum of:
        0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 2226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09316782 = score(doc=2226,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 2226, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Whether one should use a public e-mail account (e.g., Gmail, Yahoo!) or an institutional one (e.g., @wsiz.rzeszow.pl, @medicine.ox.ac.uk) as an address for correspondence is an important aspect of scientific communication. Some authors consider that public e-mail services are unprofessional and insecure, whereas others say that, in a dynamically changing working environment, public e-mail addresses allow readers to contact authors long after they have changed their workplace. To shed light on this issue, we analyzed how often authors of scientific papers provided e-mail addresses that were either public or institution based. We selected from the Web of Science database 1,000 frequently cited and 1,000 infrequently cited articles (all of the latter were noncited articles) published in 2000, 2005, and 2010, and from these we analyzed 26,937 e-mail addresses. The results showed that approximately three fourths of these addresses were institutional, but there was an increasing trend toward using public e-mail addresses over the period studied. No significant differences were found between frequently and infrequently cited papers in this respect. Further research is now needed to access the motivations and perceptions of scholars when it comes to their use of either public or institutional e-mail accounts.
  4. Song, M.; Kim, S.Y.; Lee, K.: Ensemble analysis of topical journal ranking in bioinformatics (2017) 0.02 
    0.023291955 = product of:
  0.04658391 = sum of:
    0.04658391 = product of:
      0.09316782 = sum of:
        0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 3650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09316782 = score(doc=3650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 3650, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Journal rankings, frequently determined by the journal impact factor or similar indices, are quantitative measures for evaluating a journal's performance in its discipline, which is presently a major research thrust in the bibliometrics field. Recently, text mining was adopted to augment journal ranking-based evaluation with the content analysis of a discipline taking a time-variant factor into consideration. However, previous studies focused mainly on a silo analysis of a discipline using either citation-or content-oriented approaches, and no attempt was made to analyze topical journal ranking and its change over time in a seamless and integrated manner. To address this issue, we propose a journal-time-topic model, an extension of Dirichlet multinomial regression, which we applied to the field of bioinformatics to understand journal contribution to topics in a field and the shift of topic trends. The journal-time-topic model allows us to identify which journals are the major leaders in what topics and the manner in which their topical focus. It also helps reveal an interesting distinct pattern in the journal impact factor of high- and low-ranked journals. The study results shed a new light for understanding topic specific journal rankings and shifts in journals' concentration on a subject.
  5. Schmidt, M.: ¬An analysis of the validity of retraction annotation in pubmed and the web of science (2018) 0.02 
    0.023291955 = product of:
  0.04658391 = sum of:
    0.04658391 = product of:
      0.09316782 = sum of:
        0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 4044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09316782 = score(doc=4044,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 4044, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4044)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Research on scientific misconduct relies increasingly on retractions of articles. An interdisciplinary line of research has been established that empirically assesses the phenomenon of scientific misconduct using information on retractions, and thus aims to shed light on aspects of misconduct that previously were hidden. However, comparability and interpretability of studies are to a certain extent impeded by an absence of standards in corpus delineation and by the fact that the validity of this empirical data basis has never been systematically scrutinized. This article assesses the conceptual and empirical delineation of retractions against related publication types through a comparative analysis of the coverage and consistency of retraction annotation in the databases PubMed and the Web of Science (WoS), which are both commonly used for empicial studies on retractions. The searching and linking approaches of the WoS were subsequently evaluated. The results indicate that a considerable number of PubMed retracted publications and retractions are not labeled as such in the WoS or are indistinguishable from corrections, which is highly relevant for corpus and sample strategies in the WoS.
  6. Fang, Z.; Costas, R.; Tian, W.; Wang, X.; Wouters, P.: How is science clicked on Twitter? : click metrics for Bitly short links to scientific publications (2021) 0.02 
    0.023291955 = product of:
  0.04658391 = sum of:
    0.04658391 = product of:
      0.09316782 = sum of:
        0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09316782 = score(doc=265,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 265, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    To provide some context for the potential engagement behavior of Twitter users around science, this article investigates how Bitly short links to scientific publications embedded in scholarly Twitter mentions are clicked on Twitter. Based on the click metrics of over 1.1 million Bitly short links referring to Web of Science (WoS) publications, our results show that around 49.5% of them were not clicked by Twitter users. For those Bitly short links with clicks from Twitter, the majority of their Twitter clicks accumulated within a short period of time after they were first tweeted. Bitly short links to the publications in the field of Social Sciences and Humanities tend to attract more clicks from Twitter over other subject fields. This article also assesses the extent to which Twitter clicks are correlated with some other impact indicators. Twitter clicks are weakly correlated with scholarly impact indicators (WoS citations and Mendeley readers), but moderately correlated to other Twitter engagement indicators (total retweets and total likes). In light of these results, we highlight the importance of paying more attention to the click metrics of URLs in scholarly Twitter mentions, to improve our understanding about the more effective dissemination and reception of science information on Twitter.
  7. Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005) 0.02 
    0.02055213 = product of:
  0.04110426 = sum of:
    0.04110426 = product of:
      0.08220852 = sum of:
        0.08220852 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08220852 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2007 17:02:22
  8. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.02 
    0.02055213 = product of:
  0.04110426 = sum of:
    0.04110426 = product of:
      0.08220852 = sum of:
        0.08220852 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08220852 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  9. Raan, A.F.J. van: Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators : research group indicator distributions and correlations (2006) 0.01 
    0.014532552 = product of:
  0.029065104 = sum of:
    0.029065104 = product of:
      0.05813021 = sum of:
        0.05813021 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05813021 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:20:22
  10. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01 
    0.014532552 = product of:
  0.029065104 = sum of:
    0.029065104 = product of:
      0.05813021 = sum of:
        0.05813021 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05813021 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  11. Li, T.-C.: Reference sources in periodicals : research note (1995) 0.01 
    0.013701421 = product of:
  0.027402842 = sum of:
    0.027402842 = product of:
      0.054805685 = sum of:
        0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054805685 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  12. Pichappan, P.; Sangaranachiyar, S.: Ageing approach to scientific eponyms (1996) 0.01 
    0.013701421 = product of:
  0.027402842 = sum of:
    0.027402842 = product of:
      0.054805685 = sum of:
        0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054805685 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  13. Mommoh, O.M.: Subject analysis of post-graduate theses in library, archival and information science at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (1995/96) 0.01 
    0.013701421 = product of:
  0.027402842 = sum of:
    0.027402842 = product of:
      0.054805685 = sum of:
        0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054805685 = score(doc=673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Library focus. 13/14(1995/96), S.22-25
  14. Chongde, W.; Zhe, W.: Evaluation of the models for Bradford's law (1998) 0.01 
    0.013701421 = product of:
  0.027402842 = sum of:
    0.027402842 = product of:
      0.054805685 = sum of:
        0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 3688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054805685 = score(doc=3688,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:12:28
  15. Tijssen, R.J.W.; Wijk, E. van: ¬The global science base of information and communication technologies : bibliometric analysis of ICT research papers (1998) 0.01 
    0.013701421 = product of:
  0.027402842 = sum of:
    0.027402842 = product of:
      0.054805685 = sum of:
        0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 3691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054805685 = score(doc=3691,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3691, 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=3691)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:26:54
  16. Rostaing, H.; Barts, N.; Léveillé, V.: Bibliometrics: representation instrument of the multidisciplinary positioning of a scientific area : Implementation for an Advisory Scientific Committee (2007) 0.01 
    0.013701421 = product of:
  0.027402842 = sum of:
    0.027402842 = product of:
      0.054805685 = sum of:
        0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054805685 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1144, 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=1144)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    30.12.2007 11:22:39
  17. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.01 
    0.013701421 = product of:
  0.027402842 = sum of:
    0.027402842 = product of:
      0.054805685 = sum of:
        0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054805685 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, 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=1431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:05:18
  18. Ohly, P.: Dimensions of globality : a bibliometric analysis (2016) 0.01 
    0.013701421 = product of:
  0.027402842 = sum of:
    0.027402842 = product of:
      0.054805685 = sum of:
        0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054805685 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4942, 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=4942)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2019 11:22:31
  19. Zhang, Y.: ¬The impact of Internet-based electronic resources on formal scholarly communication in the area of library and information science : a citation analysis (1998) 0.01 
    0.01211046 = product of:
  0.02422092 = sum of:
    0.02422092 = product of:
      0.04844184 = sum of:
        0.04844184 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04844184 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    30. 1.1999 17:22:22
  20. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009) 0.01 
    0.01211046 = product of:
  0.02422092 = sum of:
    0.02422092 = product of:
      0.04844184 = sum of:
        0.04844184 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04844184 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 12:43:51

Authors

Years

Themes