Search (382 results, page 1 of 20)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.10
    0.10185185 = product of:
      0.2037037 = sum of:
        0.025923865 = weight(_text_:information in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025923865 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
        0.17777984 = sum of:
          0.07462276 = weight(_text_:technology in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.07462276 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.5265094 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
          0.10315708 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.10315708 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx
  2. Raan, A.F.J. van: Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators : research group indicator distributions and correlations (2006) 0.05
    0.046206146 = product of:
      0.09241229 = sum of:
        0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00972145 = score(doc=5275,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5275, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5275)
        0.08269084 = sum of:
          0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.027983533 = score(doc=5275,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 5275, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5275)
          0.054707307 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.054707307 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = 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(2/4)
    
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:20:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.408-430
  3. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.05
    0.046206146 = product of:
      0.09241229 = sum of:
        0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00972145 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
        0.08269084 = sum of:
          0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.027983533 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
          0.054707307 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.054707307 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = 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(2/4)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.858-862
  4. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.05
    0.046193987 = product of:
      0.092387974 = sum of:
        0.025720537 = weight(_text_:information in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025720537 = score(doc=201,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.3078936 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
        0.06666744 = sum of:
          0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.027983533 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
          0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.038683902 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.9, S.1263-1274
  5. Raan, A.F.J. van: Scaling rules in the science system : influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of research groups (2008) 0.05
    0.046003405 = product of:
      0.09200681 = sum of:
        0.013748205 = weight(_text_:information in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013748205 = score(doc=2758,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2758, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2758)
        0.078258604 = sum of:
          0.039574698 = weight(_text_:technology in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.039574698 = score(doc=2758,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.2792238 = fieldWeight in 2758, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2758)
          0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.038683902 = score(doc=2758,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2758, 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=2758)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:03:12
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch: Costas, R., M. Bordons u. T.N. van Leeuwen u.a.: Scaling rules in the science system: Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.740-753.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.4, S.565-576
  6. Burrell, Q.L.: Predicting future citation behavior (2003) 0.04
    0.044560187 = product of:
      0.08912037 = sum of:
        0.011341691 = weight(_text_:information in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011341691 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
        0.07777868 = sum of:
          0.032647457 = weight(_text_:technology in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.032647457 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
          0.04513122 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04513122 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Date
    29. 3.2003 19:22:48
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.5, S.372-378
  7. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009) 0.04
    0.04351194 = product of:
      0.08702388 = sum of:
        0.01811485 = weight(_text_:information in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01811485 = score(doc=2734,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
        0.06890903 = sum of:
          0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.02331961 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
          0.045589417 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.045589417 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = 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(2/4)
    
    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
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.434-442
  8. Leydesdorff, L.; Sun, Y.: National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan : university-industry-government versus international coauthorship relations (2009) 0.04
    0.040207822 = product of:
      0.080415644 = sum of:
        0.013748205 = weight(_text_:information in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013748205 = score(doc=2761,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
        0.06666744 = sum of:
          0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.027983533 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
          0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.038683902 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2761, 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=2761)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    International co-authorship relations and university-industry-government (Triple Helix) relations have hitherto been studied separately. Using Japanese publication data for the 1981-2004 period, we were able to study both kinds of relations in a single design. In the Japanese file, 1,277,030 articles with at least one Japanese address were attributed to the three sectors, and we know additionally whether these papers were coauthored internationally. Using the mutual information in three and four dimensions, respectively, we show that the Japanese Triple-Helix system has been continuously eroded at the national level. However, since the mid-1990s, international coauthorship relations have contributed to a reduction of the uncertainty at the national level. In other words, the national publication system of Japan has developed a capacity to retain surplus value generated internationally. In a final section, we compare these results with an analysis based on similar data for Canada. A relative uncoupling of national university-industry-government relations because of international collaborations is indicated in both countries.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:07:20
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.778-788
  9. He, Z.-L.: International collaboration does not have greater epistemic authority (2009) 0.04
    0.040207822 = product of:
      0.080415644 = sum of:
        0.013748205 = weight(_text_:information in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013748205 = score(doc=3122,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3122, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3122)
        0.06666744 = sum of:
          0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.027983533 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3122, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3122)
          0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.038683902 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3122, 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=3122)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    The consistent finding that internationally coauthored papers are more heavily cited has led to a tacit agreement among politicians and scientists that international collaboration in scientific research should be particularly promoted. However, existing studies of research collaboration suffer from a major weakness in that the Thomson Reuters Web of Science until recently did not link author names with affiliation addresses. The general approach has been to hierarchically code papers into international paper, national paper, or local paper based on the address information. This hierarchical coding scheme severely understates the level and contribution of local or national collaboration on an internationally coauthored paper. In this research, I code collaboration variables by hand checking each paper in the sample, use two measures of a paper's impact, and try several regression models. I find that both international collaboration and local collaboration are positively and significantly associated with a paper's impact, but international collaboration does not have more epistemic authority than local collaboration. This result suggests that previous findings based on hierarchical coding might be misleading.
    Date
    26. 9.2009 11:22:05
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.10, S.2151-2164
  10. Costas, R.; Bordons, M.; Leeuwen, T.N. van; Raan, A.F.J. van: Scaling rules in the science system : Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers (2009) 0.04
    0.03833617 = product of:
      0.07667234 = sum of:
        0.011456838 = weight(_text_:information in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011456838 = score(doc=2759,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
        0.0652155 = sum of:
          0.03297891 = weight(_text_:technology in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03297891 = score(doc=2759,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
          0.032236587 = weight(_text_:22 in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.032236587 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2759, 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=2759)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:02:48
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch: Raan, A.F.J. van: Scaling rules in the science system: influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of research groups. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.4, S.565-576.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.740-753
  11. Asonuma, A.; Fang, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Reflections on the age distribution of Japanese scientists (2006) 0.04
    0.038194444 = product of:
      0.07638889 = sum of:
        0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00972145 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
        0.06666744 = sum of:
          0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.027983533 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
          0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.038683902 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:26:24
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.342-346
  12. Althouse, B.M.; West, J.D.; Bergstrom, C.T.; Bergstrom, T.: Differences in impact factor across fields and over time (2009) 0.04
    0.038194444 = product of:
      0.07638889 = sum of:
        0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00972145 = score(doc=2695,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2695, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2695)
        0.06666744 = sum of:
          0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.027983533 = score(doc=2695,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2695, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2695)
          0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.038683902 = score(doc=2695,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2695, 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=2695)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Date
    23. 2.2009 18:22:28
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.1, S.27-34
  13. Zhang, Y.; Jansen, B.J.; Spink, A.: Identification of factors predicting clickthrough in Web searching using neural network analysis (2009) 0.04
    0.038194444 = product of:
      0.07638889 = sum of:
        0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00972145 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
        0.06666744 = sum of:
          0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.027983533 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
          0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.038683902 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:49:11
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.557-570
  14. Camacho-Miñano, M.-del-Mar; Núñez-Nickel, M.: ¬The multilayered nature of reference selection (2009) 0.04
    0.038194444 = product of:
      0.07638889 = sum of:
        0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00972145 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
        0.06666744 = sum of:
          0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.027983533 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
          0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.038683902 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:05:07
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.754-777
  15. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.04
    0.035879306 = product of:
      0.07175861 = sum of:
        0.016202414 = weight(_text_:information in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016202414 = score(doc=586,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
        0.055556197 = sum of:
          0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.02331961 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
          0.032236587 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.032236587 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.11, S.1631-1644
  16. Mukherjee, B.: Do open-access journals in library and information science have any scholarly impact? : a bibliometric study of selected open-access journals using Google Scholar (2009) 0.03
    0.03479395 = product of:
      0.0695879 = sum of:
        0.0140317045 = weight(_text_:information in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0140317045 = score(doc=2745,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
        0.055556197 = sum of:
          0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.02331961 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
          0.032236587 = weight(_text_:22 in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.032236587 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2745, 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=2745)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Using 17 fully open-access journals published uninterruptedly during 2000 to 2004 in the field of library and information science, the present study investigates the impact of these open-access journals in terms of quantity of articles published, subject distribution of the articles, synchronous and diachronous impact factor, immediacy index, and journals' and authors' self-citation. The results indicate that during this 5-year publication period, there are as many as 1,636 articles published by these journals. At the same time, the articles have received a total of 8,591 Web citations during a 7-year citation period. Eight of 17 journals have received more than 100 citations. First Monday received the highest number of citations; however, the average number of citations per article was the highest in D-Lib Magazine. The value of the synchronous impact factor varies from 0.6989 to 1.0014 during 2002 to 2005, and the diachronous impact factor varies from 1.472 to 2.487 during 2000 to 2004. The range of the immediacy index varies between 0.0714 and 1.395. D-Lib Magazine has an immediacy index value above 0.5 in all the years whereas the immediacy index value varies from year to year for the other journals. When the citations of sample articles were analyzed according to source, it was found that 40.32% of the citations came from full-text articles, followed by 33.35% from journal articles. The percentage of journals' self-citation was only 6.04%.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:54:59
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.581-594
  17. Chen, C.: CiteSpace II : detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature (2006) 0.03
    0.033506516 = product of:
      0.06701303 = sum of:
        0.011456838 = weight(_text_:information in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011456838 = score(doc=5272,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
        0.055556197 = sum of:
          0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.02331961 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
          0.032236587 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.032236587 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    This article describes the latest development of a generic approach to detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. The work makes substantial theoretical and methodological contributions to progressive knowledge domain visualization. A specialty is conceptualized and visualized as a time-variant duality between two fundamental concepts in information science: research fronts and intellectual bases. A research front is defined as an emergent and transient grouping of concepts and underlying research issues. The intellectual base of a research front is its citation and co-citation footprint in scientific literature - an evolving network of scientific publications cited by research-front concepts. Kleinberg's (2002) burst-detection algorithm is adapted to identify emergent research-front concepts. Freeman's (1979) betweenness centrality metric is used to highlight potential pivotal points of paradigm shift over time. Two complementary visualization views are designed and implemented: cluster views and time-zone views. The contributions of the approach are that (a) the nature of an intellectual base is algorithmically and temporally identified by emergent research-front terms, (b) the value of a co-citation cluster is explicitly interpreted in terms of research-front concepts, and (c) visually prominent and algorithmically detected pivotal points substantially reduce the complexity of a visualized network. The modeling and visualization process is implemented in CiteSpace II, a Java application, and applied to the analysis of two research fields: mass extinction (1981-2004) and terrorism (1990-2003). Prominent trends and pivotal points in visualized networks were verified in collaboration with domain experts, who are the authors of pivotal-point articles. Practical implications of the work are discussed. A number of challenges and opportunities for future studies are identified.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:11:05
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.359-377
  18. Meho, L.I.; Rogers, Y.: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers : a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science (2008) 0.03
    0.0318287 = product of:
      0.0636574 = sum of:
        0.008101207 = weight(_text_:information in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008101207 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
        0.055556197 = sum of:
          0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.02331961 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
          0.032236587 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.032236587 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.11, S.1711-1726
  19. Shibata, N.; Kajikawa, Y.; Takeda, Y.; Matsushima, K.: Comparative study on methods of detecting research fronts using different types of citation (2009) 0.03
    0.0318287 = product of:
      0.0636574 = sum of:
        0.008101207 = weight(_text_:information in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008101207 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2743, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2743)
        0.055556197 = sum of:
          0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.02331961 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2743, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2743)
          0.032236587 = weight(_text_:22 in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.032236587 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047586527 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2743, 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=2743)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:52:50
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.571-580
  20. Bensman, S.J.: Garfield and the impact factors (2007) 0.03
    0.031617623 = product of:
      0.063235246 = sum of:
        0.025923865 = weight(_text_:information in 4680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025923865 = score(doc=4680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 4680, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4680)
        0.03731138 = product of:
          0.07462276 = sum of:
            0.07462276 = weight(_text_:technology in 4680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07462276 = score(doc=4680,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047586527 = queryNorm
                0.5265094 = fieldWeight in 4680, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4680)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx

Authors

Types

  • a 377
  • m 4
  • el 2
  • r 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Classifications