Search (1099 results, page 1 of 55)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Noyons, E.C.M.; Moed, H.F.; Luwel, M.: Combining mapping and citation analysis for evaluative bibliometric purposes : a bibliometric study (1999) 0.01 
    0.006156717 = product of:
  0.055410452 = sum of:
    0.048828542 = product of:
      0.097657084 = sum of:
        0.097657084 = weight(_text_:elektrotechnik in 2941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097657084 = score(doc=2941,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17964433 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.5436135 = fieldWeight in 2941, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0065819086 = weight(_text_:in in 2941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065819086 = score(doc=2941,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 2941, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2941)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
    Abstract
    The general aim of the article is to demonstrate how the results both of a structural analysis, and of a research performance assessment of a research field, can be enriched by combining elements of both into one integrated analysis. In addition, a procedure is discussed to select and analyse candidate benchmark institutes to assess the position of a particular resrach institute, in terms of both its cognitive orientation and its scientific production and impact at the international research front. The combined method is applied in an evaluation of the research scope and performance of the Interuniversity Centre for Micro-Electronics (IMEC) in Leuven, Belgium. On the basis of the comments of an international panel of experts in micro-electronics, the method was discussed in detail. We concluded that the method provides a detailed and useful picture of the position of the institute from an international perspective. Moreover, we found that the results of each of the 2 parts are an added value to the other
    Field
    Elektrotechnik
  2. Ohly, P.: Dimensions of globality : a bibliometric analysis (2016) 0.00 
    0.0040966556 = product of:
  0.0368699 = sum of:
    0.0050667557 = weight(_text_:in in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050667557 = score(doc=4942,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 4942, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4942)
    0.031803142 = product of:
      0.04770471 = sum of:
        0.023960123 = weight(_text_:29 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023960123 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.077061385 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 4942, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4942)
        0.023744587 = weight(_text_:22 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023744587 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
    Date
    20. 1.2019 11:22:31
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.15
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei
  3. Burrell, Q.L.: Predicting future citation behavior (2003) 0.00 
    0.0037886153 = product of:
  0.034097537 = sum of:
    0.0062697898 = weight(_text_:in in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062697898 = score(doc=3837,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
    0.027827747 = product of:
      0.04174162 = sum of:
        0.020965107 = weight(_text_:29 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020965107 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.077061385 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
        0.020776514 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020776514 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3837, 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=3837)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
    Abstract
    In this article we further develop the theory for a stochastic model for the citation process in the presence of obsolescence to predict the future citation pattern of individual papers in a collection. More precisely, we investigate the conditional distribution-and its mean- of the number of citations to a paper after time t, given the number of citations it has received up to time t. In an important parametric case it is shown that the expected number of future citations is a linear function of the current number, this being interpretable as an example of a success-breeds-success phenomenon.
    Date
    29. 3.2003 19:22:48
  4. Huang, M.-H.; Huang, W.-T.; Chang, C.-C.; Chen, D. Z.; Lin, C.-P.: The greater scattering phenomenon beyond Bradford's law in patent citation (2014) 0.00 
    0.0033815848 = product of:
  0.030434262 = sum of:
    0.0065819086 = weight(_text_:in in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065819086 = score(doc=1352,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
    0.023852354 = product of:
      0.03577853 = sum of:
        0.017970093 = weight(_text_:29 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017970093 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.077061385 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
        0.01780844 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01780844 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
    Abstract
    Patent analysis has become important for management as it offers timely and valuable information to evaluate R&D performance and identify the prospects of patents. This study explores the scattering patterns of patent impact based on citations in 3 distinct technological areas, the liquid crystal, semiconductor, and drug technological areas, to identify the core patents in each area. The research follows the approach from Bradford's law, which equally divides total citations into 3 zones. While the result suggests that the scattering of patent citations corresponded with features of Bradford's law, the proportion of patents in the 3 zones did not match the proportion as proposed by the law. As a result, the study shows that the distributions of citations in all 3 areas were more concentrated than what Bradford's law proposed. The Groos (1967) droop was also presented by the scattering of patent citations, and the growth rate of cumulative citation decreased in the third zone.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:11:29
  5. Haycock, L.A.: Citation analysis of education dissertations for collection development (2004) 0.00 
    0.0033178653 = product of:
  0.029860787 = sum of:
    0.006008433 = weight(_text_:in in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006008433 = score(doc=135,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
    0.023852354 = product of:
      0.03577853 = sum of:
        0.017970093 = weight(_text_:29 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017970093 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.077061385 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
        0.01780844 = weight(_text_:22 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01780844 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 135, 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=135)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
    Abstract
    The reference lists of forty-three education dissertations on curriculum and instruction completed at the University of Minnesota during the calendar years 2000-2002 were analyzed to inform collection development. As one measure of use of the academic library collection, the citation analysis yielded data to guide journal selection, retention, and cancellation decisions. The project aimed to ensure that the most frequently cited journals were retained on subscription. The serial monograph ratio for citation also was evaluated in comparison with other studies and explored in the context of funding ratios. Results of citation studies can provide a basis for liaison conversations with faculty in addition to guiding selection decisions. This research project can serve as a model for similar projects in other libraries that look at literature in education as well as other fields.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    17.12.2006 19:44:29
  6. Dees, W.: "Publication power approach" (2013) 0.00 
    0.003149413 = product of:
  0.028344717 = sum of:
    0.004433411 = weight(_text_:in in 924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004433411 = score(doc=924,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 924, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=924)
    0.023911307 = weight(_text_:der in 924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023911307 = score(doc=924,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.048934754 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.4886365 = fieldWeight in 924, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=924)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
    Abstract
    Die Publikationslandschaft der Erziehungswissenschaft ist durch eine enorme Breite undVielfalt sowie zahlreiche Verbindungen in benachbarte Felder gekennzeichnet. Aktuelle Analysen zum Publikationsverhalten von Erziehungswissenschaftlern zeigen, dass diese Hunderte von verschiedenen Zeitschriften und Verlagen zur Veröffentlichung nutzen. Um aus dieser Fülle an Publikationsorten die bedeutendsten zu ermitteln, wird ein neuer Ansatz zur Zeitschriftenbewertung, der "publication power approach" von Holsapple, auf die deutsche Erziehungswissenschaft übertragen. Dieser Ansatz basiert auf dem Publikationsverhalten von Forschern an ausgewählten Institutionen und stellt eine Alternative zu Expertenbefragungen und Zitationsanalysen dar. Der Beitrag stellt wesentlich Ergebnisse zur "publication power" von Zeitschriften und Verlagen der Erziehungswissenschaft vor und diskutiert Vor- und Nachteile dieses Ansatzes im Vergleich zu den herkömmlichen Bewertungsmethoden.
    Series
    Fortschritte in der Wissensorganisation; Bd.12
    Source
    Wissen - Wissenschaft - Organisation: Proceedings der 12. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Bonn, 19. bis 21. Oktober 2009. Hrsg.: H.P. Ohly
  7. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990) 0.00 
    0.0030919719 = product of:
  0.055655494 = sum of:
    0.055655494 = product of:
      0.08348324 = sum of:
        0.041930214 = weight(_text_:29 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041930214 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.077061385 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
        0.041553028 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041553028 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.055555556 = coord(1/18)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:29
  8. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.00 
    0.0028965184 = product of:
  0.026068665 = sum of:
    0.0120770335 = weight(_text_:der in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0120770335 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.048934754 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.2467987 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
    0.013991632 = product of:
      0.041974895 = sum of:
        0.041974895 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041974895 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  9. Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020) 0.00 
    0.002706154 = product of:
  0.024355385 = sum of:
    0.0044784215 = weight(_text_:in in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044784215 = score(doc=178,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
    0.019876964 = product of:
      0.029815445 = sum of:
        0.0149750775 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0149750775 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.077061385 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
        0.014840367 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014840367 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
    Abstract
    Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  10. Ball, R.: Wissenschaftskommunikation im Wandel : die Verwendung von Fragezeichen im Titel von wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriftenbeiträgen in der Medizin, den Lebenswissenschaften und in der Physik von 1966 bis 2005 (2007) 0.00 
    0.0025929953 = product of:
  0.023336958 = sum of:
    0.004433411 = weight(_text_:in in 635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004433411 = score(doc=635,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 635, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=635)
    0.018903548 = weight(_text_:der in 635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018903548 = score(doc=635,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.048934754 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.38630107 = fieldWeight in 635, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=635)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
    Abstract
    Die Titel wissenschaftlicher Veröffentlichungen sind von besonderer Bedeutung. Wir haben fast 20 Millionen wissenschaftliche Artikel untersucht und den Anteil von Artikeln mit einem Fragezeichen am Ende des Titels im Laufe der letzten 40 Jahre analysiert. Unsere Studie beschränkte sich auf die Disziplinen Physik, Lebenswissenschaften und Medizin. Dabei haben wir eine deutliche Zunahme der Fragezeichen-Artikel von 50 Prozent auf mehr als 200 Prozent feststellten können. Vor diesem Hintergrund werden im vorliegenden Beitrag die grundsätzlichen Funktionen und Strukturen der Titel wissenschaftlicher Publikationen untersucht. Wir gehen davon aus, dass Marketing-Aspekte die entscheidenden Beweggründe sind für die zunehmende Nutzung von Fragezeichen-Titeln bei wissenschaftlichen Publikationen.
  11. Bonitz, M.; Scharnhorst, A.: National science systems and the Matthew effect for countries (2000) 0.00 
    0.0023415943 = product of:
  0.021074349 = sum of:
    0.0065819086 = weight(_text_:in in 6643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065819086 = score(doc=6643,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 6643, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6643)
    0.01449244 = weight(_text_:der in 6643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01449244 = score(doc=6643,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.048934754 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.29615843 = fieldWeight in 6643, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6643)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
    Abstract
    In this paper we continue our investigation of the micro-structure of the Matthew effect for countries (MEC). After the recent identification of a new type of scientific journal, the Matthew core journal (MCJ), we study the relations of MCJ to other types of core journals - publication, citation, and participation core journals. 144 MCJ out of 2712 SCI-journals in our sample account for half of the MEC. A typology of the MCJ can be established. The exclusive role of the MCJ consists in carrying a high number of Matthew citations due to the competition of many countries for a high impact of their papers. The research fronts in science are "boiling" in the MCJ. The 144 MCJ are sufficient to construct a country rank distribution that reflects world science performance
    Series
    Fortschritte in der Wissensorganisation; Bd.6
    Source
    Globalisierung und Wissensorganisation: Neue Aspekte für Wissen, Wissenschaft und Informationssysteme: Proceedings der 6. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Hamburg, 23.-25.9.1999. Hrsg.: H.P. Ohly, G. Rahmstorf u. A. Sigel
  12. Haustein, S.; Sugimoto, C.; Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication : Guest editorial (2015) 0.00 
    0.001994215 = product of:
  0.01196529 = sum of:
    0.0053741056 = weight(_text_:in in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053741056 = score(doc=3809,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.00362311 = weight(_text_:der in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00362311 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.048934754 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.07403961 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.0029680734 = product of:
      0.00890422 = sum of:
        0.00890422 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00890422 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(3/18)
    Abstract
    This year marks 350 years since the inaugural publications of both the Journal des Sçavans and the Philosophical Transactions, first published in 1665 and considered the birth of the peer-reviewed journal article. This form of scholarly communication has not only remained the dominant model for disseminating new knowledge (particularly for science and medicine), but has also increased substantially in volume. Derek de Solla Price - the "father of scientometrics" (Merton and Garfield, 1986, p. vii) - was the first to document the exponential increase in scientific journals and showed that "scientists have always felt themselves to be awash in a sea of the scientific literature" (Price, 1963, p. 15), as, for example, expressed at the 1948 Royal Society's Scientific Information Conference: Not for the first time in history, but more acutely than ever before, there was a fear that scientists would be overwhelmed, that they would be no longer able to control the vast amounts of potentially relevant material that were pouring forth from the world's presses, that science itself was under threat (Bawden and Robinson, 2008, p. 183).
    One of the solutions to help scientists filter the most relevant publications and, thus, to stay current on developments in their fields during the transition from "little science" to "big science", was the introduction of citation indexing as a Wellsian "World Brain" (Garfield, 1964) of scientific information: It is too much to expect a research worker to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the bibliographic descendants of antecedent papers. It would not be excessive to demand that the thorough scholar check all papers that have cited or criticized such papers, if they could be located quickly. The citation index makes this check practicable (Garfield, 1955, p. 108). In retrospective, citation indexing can be perceived as a pre-social web version of crowdsourcing, as it is based on the concept that the community of citing authors outperforms indexers in highlighting cognitive links between papers, particularly on the level of specific ideas and concepts (Garfield, 1983). Over the last 50 years, citation analysis and more generally, bibliometric methods, have developed from information retrieval tools to research evaluation metrics, where they are presumed to make scientific funding more efficient and effective (Moed, 2006). However, the dominance of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has also led to significant goal displacement (Merton, 1957) and the oversimplification of notions of "research productivity" and "scientific quality", creating adverse effects such as salami publishing, honorary authorships, citation cartels, and misuse of indicators (Binswanger, 2015; Cronin and Sugimoto, 2014; Frey and Osterloh, 2006; Haustein and Larivière, 2015; Weingart, 2005).
    Furthermore, the rise of the web, and subsequently, the social web, has challenged the quasi-monopolistic status of the journal as the main form of scholarly communication and citation indices as the primary assessment mechanisms. Scientific communication is becoming more open, transparent, and diverse: publications are increasingly open access; manuscripts, presentations, code, and data are shared online; research ideas and results are discussed and criticized openly on blogs; and new peer review experiments, with open post publication assessment by anonymous or non-anonymous referees, are underway. The diversification of scholarly production and assessment, paired with the increasing speed of the communication process, leads to an increased information overload (Bawden and Robinson, 2008), demanding new filters. The concept of altmetrics, short for alternative (to citation) metrics, was created out of an attempt to provide a filter (Priem et al., 2010) and to steer against the oversimplification of the measurement of scientific success solely on the basis of number of journal articles published and citations received, by considering a wider range of research outputs and metrics (Piwowar, 2013). Although the term altmetrics was introduced in a tweet in 2010 (Priem, 2010), the idea of capturing traces - "polymorphous mentioning" (Cronin et al., 1998, p. 1320) - of scholars and their documents on the web to measure "impact" of science in a broader manner than citations was introduced years before, largely in the context of webometrics (Almind and Ingwersen, 1997; Thelwall et al., 2005):
    There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Footnote
    Teil eines Special Issue: Social Media Metrics in Scholarly Communication: exploring tweets, blogs, likes and other altmetrics. Der Beitrag ist frei verfügbar.
  13. Li, T.-C.: Reference sources in periodicals : research note (1995) 0.00 
    0.0018545267 = product of:
  0.01669074 = sum of:
    0.008775878 = weight(_text_:in in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008775878 = score(doc=5092,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.29450375 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
    0.007914863 = product of:
      0.023744587 = sum of:
        0.023744587 = weight(_text_:22 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023744587 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
    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
  14. Campanario, J.M.: Large increases and decreases in journal impact factors in only one year : the effect of journal self-citations (2011) 0.00 
    0.0018144656 = product of:
  0.01633019 = sum of:
    0.009404684 = weight(_text_:in in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009404684 = score(doc=4187,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.31560543 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
    0.0069255047 = product of:
      0.020776514 = sum of:
        0.020776514 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020776514 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4187, 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=4187)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
    Abstract
    I studied the factors (citations, self-citations, and number of articles) that influenced large changes in only 1 year in the impact factors (IFs) of journals. A set of 360 instances of journals with large increases or decreases in their IFs from a given year to the following was selected from journals in the Journal Citation Reports from 1998 to 2007 (40 journals each year). The main factor influencing large changes was the change in the number of citations. About 54% of the increases and 42% of the decreases in the journal IFs were associated with changes in the journal self-citations.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:53:00
  15. Zhao, L.: How librarians used e-resources : an analysis of citations in CCQ (2006) 0.00 
    0.0017775502 = product of:
  0.015997952 = sum of:
    0.008011244 = weight(_text_:in in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008011244 = score(doc=5766,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.26884392 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
    0.007986708 = product of:
      0.023960123 = sum of:
        0.023960123 = weight(_text_:29 in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023960123 = score(doc=5766,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.077061385 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
    Abstract
    How are library professionals who do research about bibliographic organization using electronic resources (e-resources) in their journal articles? Are they keeping pace with the use of e-resources outside the library world? What are the e-resources most used in their research? This article aims to address these and other questions by analyzing bibliographical references/notes in articles in Cataloging and Classification Quarterly (CCQ) for every other year from 1994 to 2004.
    Date
    29. 9.2008 18:49:25
  16. Schreiber, M.: Revisiting the g-index : the average number of citations in the g-core (2009) 0.00 
    0.0017775502 = product of:
  0.015997952 = sum of:
    0.008011244 = weight(_text_:in in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008011244 = score(doc=3313,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.26884392 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
    0.007986708 = product of:
      0.023960123 = sum of:
        0.023960123 = weight(_text_:29 in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023960123 = score(doc=3313,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.077061385 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
    Abstract
    The g-index is discussed in terms of the average number of citations of the publications in the g-core, showing that it combines features of the h-index and the A-index in one number. For a visualization, data of 8 famous physicists are presented and analyzed. In comparison with the h-index, the g-index increases between 67% and 144%, on average by a factor of 2.
    Date
    4. 2.2010 20:56:29
  17. Harzing, A.-W.; Wal, R. van der: ¬A Google Scholar h-index for journals : an alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business (2009) 0.00 
    0.0017630123 = product of:
  0.01586711 = sum of:
    0.0062054833 = weight(_text_:in in 2630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062054833 = score(doc=2630,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 2630, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2630)
    0.009661627 = weight(_text_:der in 2630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009661627 = score(doc=2630,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.048934754 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.19743896 = fieldWeight in 2630, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2630)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
    Abstract
    We propose a new data source (Google Scholar) and metric (Hirsch's h-index) to assess journal impact in the field of economics and business. A systematic comparison between the Google Scholar h-index and the ISI Journal Impact Factor for a sample of 838 journals in economics and business shows that the former provides a more accurate and comprehensive measure of journal impact.
  18. Pichappan, P.; Sangaranachiyar, S.: Ageing approach to scientific eponyms (1996) 0.00 
    0.001675593 = product of:
  0.0150803365 = sum of:
    0.007165474 = weight(_text_:in in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007165474 = score(doc=80,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
    0.007914863 = product of:
      0.023744587 = sum of:
        0.023744587 = weight(_text_:22 in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023744587 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
    Abstract
    There is a decrease in the incidence of explicit references to a paper over time, hence the assumption that information ages. In a study which attempts to discover whether information really ages it is necessary to include eponyms, anonyms and footnote references. Reports a pilot study which demonstrates that there is an increase over time in the frequency of use of eponyms
    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
  19. Crespo, J.A.; Herranz, N.; Li, Y.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level (2014) 0.00 
    0.0016391855 = product of:
  0.014752669 = sum of:
    0.007756854 = weight(_text_:in in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007756854 = score(doc=1291,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.260307 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.006995816 = product of:
      0.020987447 = sum of:
        0.020987447 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020987447 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.076713994 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021906832 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
    Abstract
    This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.
  20. Kretschmer, H.; Kretschmer, T.: Well-ordered collaboration structures of co-author pairs in journals (2006) 0.00 
    0.0016345492 = product of:
  0.014710943 = sum of:
    0.008672426 = weight(_text_:in in 25) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008672426 = score(doc=25,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.29103208 = fieldWeight in 25, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=25)
    0.0060385168 = weight(_text_:der in 25) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060385168 = score(doc=25,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.048934754 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.12339935 = fieldWeight in 25, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=25)
  0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
    Abstract
    In single-authored bibliographies only single scientist distribution can be found. But in multi-authored bibliographies single scientists distribution, pairs distribution, triples distribution, etc., can be presented. Whereas regarding Lotka's law single scientists P distribution (both in single-authored and in multi-authored bibliographies) is of interest, in the future pairs P, Q distribution, triples P, Q, R distribution, etc. should be considered Starting with pair distribution, the following question arises in the present paper: Is there also any regularity or well-ordered structure for the distribution of coauthor pairs in journals in analogy to Lotka's law for the distribution of single authors? Usually, in information science "laws " or "regularities " (for example Lotka's law) are mathematical descriptions of observed data inform of functions; however explanations of these phenomena are mostly missing. By contrast, in this paper the derivation of a formula for describing the distribution of the number of co-author pairs will be presented based on wellknown regularities in socio psychology or sociology in conjunction with the Gestalt theory as explanation for well-ordered collaboration structures and production of scientific literature, as well as derivations from Lotka's law. The assumed regularities for the distribution of co-author pairs in journals could be shown in the co-authorship data (1980-1998) of the journals Science, Nature, Proc Nat Acad Sci USA and Phys Rev B Condensed Matter.
    Source
    Vom Wandel der Wissensorganisation im Informationszeitalter: Festschrift für Walther Umstätter zum 65. Geburtstag, hrsg. von P. Hauke u. K. Umlauf

Authors

Years

Types

Themes