Search (564 results, page 1 of 29)

0.03937016 = product of:
  0.07874032 = sum of:
    0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029519552 = score(doc=294,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=294,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
    0.02231347 = weight(_text_:of in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02231347 = score(doc=294,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=294,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

Purpose - This study aims to explore the journal bibliometric characteristics of the Journal of Documentation (JOD) and the subject relationship with other disciplines by citation analysis. Design/methodology/approach - The citation data were drawn from references of each article of JOD during 1998 and 2008. Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, Library of Congress Subject Heading, retrieved from the WorldCat and LISA database were used to identify the main class, subclass and subject of cited journals and books. Findings - The results of this study revealed that journal articles are the most cited document, followed by books and book chapters, electronic resources, and conference proceedings, respectively. The three main classes of cited journals in JOD papers are library science, science, and social sciences. The three subclasses of non-LIS journals that were highly cited in JOD papers are Science, "Mathematics. Computer science", and "Industries. Land use. Labor". The three highly cited subjects of library and information science journals encompass searching, information work, and online information retrieval. The most cited main class of books in JOD papers is library and information science, followed by social sciences, science, "Philosophy. Psychology. Religion." The three highly cited subclasses of books in JOD papers are "Books (General). Writing. Paleography. Book industries and trade. Libraries. Bibliography," "Philology and linguistics," and Science, and the most cited subject of books is information storage and retrieval systems. Originality/value - Results for the present research found that information science, as represented by JOD, is a developing discipline with an expanding literature relating to multiple subject areas.

Object

Journal of documentation

Source

Journal of documentation. 67(2011) no.5, S.806-822

0.038712543 = product of:
  0.077425085 = sum of:
    0.037047986 = weight(_text_:use in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037047986 = score(doc=4147,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.29299045 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
    0.02087234 = weight(_text_:of in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02087234 = score(doc=4147,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.

Date

8. 1.2011 19:22:13

Source

Journal of documentation. 66(2010) no.5, S.681-705

0.037743486 = product of:
  0.07548697 = sum of:
    0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020873476 = score(doc=1377,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1377, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1377)
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 1377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=1377,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 1377, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1377)
    0.023667008 = weight(_text_:of in 1377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023667008 = score(doc=1377,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.36650562 = fieldWeight in 1377, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1377)
    0.00955682 = product of:
      0.01911364 = sum of:
        0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 1377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01911364 = score(doc=1377,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 1377, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1377)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

The organization of large collections of documents has become more important with the increase in the amount of digital information available. In certain constricted domains of knowledge, keywords and subject descriptors tend to be similar and therefore insufficient to differentiate documents. In this context, instead of relying only on the presence of common terms, the identification of common cited references can be useful to define semantic relationship among documents. The purpose of this work is to add another instance on the research linking information retrieval and bibliometric techniques aided by information technology. A domain analytic method was developed to generate clusters of documents, which uses self-organizing maps, in the scope of artificial neural networks, to categorize documents. The results obtained show that this approach successfully identified clusters of authors and documents through their cited references. In addition, further qualitative analysis of these clusters demonstrates the existence of semantic relationships between the documents. This study can contribute to the development of the field of knowledge organization by evaluating the use of artificial neural networks in the automatic categorization of documents in a constricted knowledge domain based on the analysis of the references cited by these documents.

0.03733675 = product of:
  0.0746735 = sum of:
    0.036299463 = weight(_text_:use in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036299463 = score(doc=1350,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2870708 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
    0.014968331 = weight(_text_:of in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968331 = score(doc=1350,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.016784549 = product of:
      0.033569098 = sum of:
        0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033569098 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

Literature citation analysis plays a very important role in bibliometrics and scientometrics, such as the Science Citation Index (SCI) impact factor, h-index. Existing citation analysis methods assume that all citations in a paper are equally important, and they simply count the number of citations. Here we argue that the citations in a paper are not equally important and some citations are more important than the others. We use a strength value to assess the importance of each citation and propose to use the regression method with a few useful features for automatically estimating the strength value of each citation. Evaluation results on a manually labeled data set in the computer science field show that the estimated values can achieve good correlation with human-labeled values. We further apply the estimated citation strength values for evaluating paper influence and author influence, and the preliminary evaluation results demonstrate the usefulness of the citation strength values.

Date

22. 8.2014 17:12:35

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.9, S.1929-1938

0.036964335 = product of:
  0.14785734 = sum of:
    0.020662563 = weight(_text_:of in 3698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020662563 = score(doc=3698,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 3698, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3698)
    0.12719478 = sum of:
      0.026759097 = weight(_text_:on in 3698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026759097 = score(doc=3698,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 3698, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3698)
      0.10043568 = weight(_text_:line in 3698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10043568 = score(doc=3698,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.4337094 = fieldWeight in 3698, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3698)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This brief communication analyzes the statistics and methods Lotka used to derive his inverse square law of scientific productivity from the standpoint of modern theory. It finds that he violated the norms of this theory by extremely truncating his data on the right. It also proves that Lotka himself played an important role in establishing the commonly used method of identifying power-law behavior by the R2 fit to a regression line on a log-log plot that modern theory considers unreliable by basing the derivation of his law on this very method.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.7, S.1786-1791

0.03686695 = product of:
  0.09831187 = sum of:
    0.067910075 = weight(_text_:use in 4671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067910075 = score(doc=4671,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.5370603 = fieldWeight in 4671, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4671)
    0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 4671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018933605 = score(doc=4671,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 4671, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4671)
    0.011468184 = product of:
      0.022936368 = sum of:
        0.022936368 = weight(_text_:on in 4671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022936368 = score(doc=4671,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 4671, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

The use of indicators and metrics for research evaluation purposes is well-documented; however, less is known about their use by individual scholars. With a focus on the social sciences, this article contributes to the existing literature on indicators and metrics use in fields with diverse publication practices. Scholars in Australia and Sweden were asked about their use and reasons for using metrics. A total of 581 completed surveys were analyzed to generate descriptive statistics, with textual analysis performed on comments provided to open questions. While just under half of the participant group had used metrics, the Australians reported use in twice the proportion of their Swedish peers. Institutional policies and processes were frequently associated with use, and the scholars' comments suggest a high level of awareness of some metrics as well as strategic behavior in demonstrating research performance. There is also evidence of tensions between scholars' research evaluation environment and their disciplinary values and publication practices.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.1, S.16-26

0.03652037 = product of:
  0.07304074 = sum of:
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.02231347 = weight(_text_:of in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02231347 = score(doc=1291,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.00955682 = product of:
      0.01911364 = sum of:
        0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01911364 = score(doc=1291,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.019780781 = product of:
      0.039561562 = sum of:
        0.039561562 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039561562 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

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.

Object

Web of Science

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.6, S.1244-1256

0.035075396 = product of:
  0.093534395 = sum of:
    0.057394497 = weight(_text_:use in 3781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057394497 = score(doc=3781,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.45389885 = fieldWeight in 3781, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3781)
    0.026776163 = weight(_text_:of in 3781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026776163 = score(doc=3781,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.41465378 = fieldWeight in 3781, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3781)
    0.009363732 = product of:
      0.018727465 = sum of:
        0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 3781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018727465 = score(doc=3781,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 3781, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Social media has become integrated into the fabric of the scholarly communication system in fundamental ways, principally through scholarly use of social media platforms and the promotion of new indicators on the basis of interactions with these platforms. Research and scholarship in this area has accelerated since the coining and subsequent advocacy for altmetrics-that is, research indicators based on social media activity. This review provides an extensive account of the state-of-the art in both scholarly use of social media and altmetrics. The review consists of 2 main parts: the first examines the use of social media in academia, reviewing the various functions these platforms have in the scholarly communication process and the factors that affect this use. The second part reviews empirical studies of altmetrics, discussing the various interpretations of altmetrics, data collection and methodological limitations, and differences according to platform. The review ends with a critical discussion of the implications of this transformation in the scholarly communication system.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.9, S.2037-2062

0.035028175 = product of:
  0.07005635 = sum of:
    0.029222867 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029222867 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
    0.013526822 = weight(_text_:of in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013526822 = score(doc=4188,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.019581974 = product of:
      0.039163947 = sum of:
        0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039163947 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, 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=4188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

This article aims to identify whether different weighted PageRank algorithms can be applied to author citation networks to measure the popularity and prestige of a scholar from a citation perspective. Information retrieval (IR) was selected as a test field and data from 1956-2008 were collected from Web of Science. Weighted PageRank with citation and publication as weighted vectors were calculated on author citation networks. The results indicate that both popularity rank and prestige rank were highly correlated with the weighted PageRank. Principal component analysis was conducted to detect relationships among these different measures. For capturing prize winners within the IR field, prestige rank outperformed all the other measures

Date

22. 1.2011 13:02:21

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.236-245

0.035015456 = product of:
  0.07003091 = sum of:
    0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030249555 = score(doc=669,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 669, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=669)
    0.014758972 = weight(_text_:of in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014758972 = score(doc=669,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 669, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=669)
    0.0110352645 = product of:
      0.022070529 = sum of:
        0.022070529 = weight(_text_:on in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022070529 = score(doc=669,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 669, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=669)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 669, 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=669)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

This paper deals with the role of a journal's publisher country in determining the expected citation rates of the articles published in it. We analyze whether a paper has a higher citation rate when it is published in one of the large publisher nations, the U.S., U.K., or the Netherlands, compared to a hypothetical situation when the same paper is published in journals of different origin. This would constitute a "free lunch," which could be explained by a Matthew effect visible on the country-level, similar to the well-documented Matthew effect on the author-level. We first use a simulation model that highlights increasing citation returns to quality as the central key condition on which such a Matthew effect may emerge. Then we use an international bibliometric panel data set of forty-nine countries for the years 2000-2010 and show that such a "free lunch" implied by this Matthew effect can be observed for top journals from the U.S. and depending on the specification also from the U.K. and the Netherlands, while there is no effect for lower-ranked American journals and negative effects for lower-ranked British journals as well as those coming from the Netherlands.

Date

22. 3.2013 19:45:49

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.3, S.596-611

0.034003455 = product of:
  0.06800691 = sum of:
    0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025667597 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
    0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018933605 = score(doc=2835,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.016784549 = product of:
      0.033569098 = sum of:
        0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033569098 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to develop methodology to determine conceptual overlap between research areas. It investigates patterns of terminology usage in scientific abstracts as boundary objects between research specialties. Research specialties were determined by high-level classifications assigned by Thomson Reuters in their Essential Science Indicators file, which provided a strictly hierarchical classification of journals into 22 categories. Results from the query "network theory" were downloaded from the Web of Science. From this file, two top-level groups, economics and social sciences, were selected and topically analyzed to provide a baseline of similarity on which to run an informetric analysis. The Places & Spaces Map of Science (Klavans and Boyack 2007) was used to determine the proximity of disciplines to one another in order to select the two disciplines use in the analysis. Groups analyzed share common theories and goals; however, groups used different language to describe their research. It was found that 61% of term words were shared between the two groups.

0.03310797 = product of:
  0.06621594 = sum of:
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
    0.01850135 = weight(_text_:of in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01850135 = score(doc=2598,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
    0.012337802 = product of:
      0.024675604 = sum of:
        0.024675604 = weight(_text_:on in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024675604 = score(doc=2598,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.271686 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the disciplinary orientation of scientific publications that were mentioned on different social media platforms, focussing on their differences and similarities with citation counts. Design/methodology/approach - Social media metrics and readership counts, associated with 500,216 publications and their citation data from the Web of Science database, were collected from Altmetric.com and Mendeley. Results are presented through descriptive statistical analyses together with science maps generated with VOSviewer. Findings - The results confirm Mendeley as the most prevalent social media source with similar characteristics to citations in their distribution across fields and their density in average values per publication. The humanities, natural sciences, and engineering disciplines have a much lower presence of social media metrics. Twitter has a stronger focus on general medicine and social sciences. Other sources (blog, Facebook, Google+, and news media mentions) are more prominent in regards to multidisciplinary journals. Originality/value - This paper reinforces the relevance of Mendeley as a social media source for analytical purposes from a disciplinary perspective, being particularly relevant for the social sciences (together with Twitter). Key implications for the use of social media metrics on the evaluation of research performance (e.g. the concentration of some social media metrics, such as blogs, news items, etc., around multidisciplinary journals) are identified.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.3, S.260 - 288

0.03309005 = product of:
  0.0661801 = sum of:
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
    0.023000197 = weight(_text_:of in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023000197 = score(doc=4959,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=4959,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4959, 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=4959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

This study uses three bibliometric methods: direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-authorship analysis, to investigate interdisciplinary changes in library and information science (LIS) from 1978 to 2007. The results reveal that LIS researchers most frequently cite publications in their own discipline. In addition, half of all co-authors of LIS articles are affiliated with LIS-related institutes. The results confirm that the degree of interdisciplinarity within LIS has increased, particularly co-authorship. However, the study found sources of direct citations in LIS articles are widely distributed across 30 disciplines, but co-authors of LIS articles are distributed across only 25 disciplines. The degree of interdisciplinarity was found ranging from 0.61 to 0.82 with citation to references in all articles being the highest and that of co-authorship being the lowest. Percentages of contribution attributable to LIS show a decreasing tendency based on the results of direct citation and co-authorship analysis, but an increasing tendency based on those of bibliographic coupling analysis. Such differences indicate each of the three bibliometric methods has its strength and provides insights respectively for viewing various aspects of interdisciplinarity, suggesting the use of no single bibliometric method can reveal all aspects of interdisciplinarity due to its multifaceted nature.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.22-33

0.03271056 = product of:
  0.06542112 = sum of:
    0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020873476 = score(doc=3384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=3384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
    0.017640345 = weight(_text_:of in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017640345 = score(doc=3384,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=3384,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

In recent years there has been an increasing demand for research evaluation within universities and other research-based organisations. In parallel, there has been an increasing recognition that traditional citation-based indicators are not able to reflect the societal impacts of research and are slow to appear. This has led to the creation of new indicators for different types of research impact as well as timelier indicators, mainly derived from the Web. These indicators have been called altmetrics, webometrics or just web metrics. This book describes and evaluates a range of web indicators for aspects of societal or scholarly impact, discusses the theory and practice of using and evaluating web indicators for research assessment and outlines practical strategies for obtaining many web indicators. In addition to describing impact indicators for traditional scholarly outputs, such as journal articles and monographs, it also covers indicators for videos, datasets, software and other non-standard scholarly outputs. The book describes strategies to analyse web indicators for individual publications as well as to compare the impacts of groups of publications. The practical part of the book includes descriptions of how to use the free software Webometric Analyst to gather and analyse web data. This book is written for information science undergraduate and Master?s students that are learning about alternative indicators or scientometrics as well as Ph.D. students and other researchers and practitioners using indicators to help assess research impact or to study scholarly communication.

Series

Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services; 52

0.030410122 = product of:
  0.060820244 = sum of:
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
    0.017640345 = weight(_text_:of in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017640345 = score(doc=3806,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=3806,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3806, 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=3806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

Purpose Mendeley reader counts have been proposed as early indicators for the impact of academic publications. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether there are enough Mendeley readers for research evaluation purposes during the month when an article is first published. Design/methodology/approach Average Mendeley reader counts were compared to the average Scopus citation counts for 104,520 articles from ten disciplines during the second half of 2016. Findings Articles attracted, on average, between 0.1 and 0.8 Mendeley readers per article in the month in which they first appeared in Scopus. This is about ten times more than the average Scopus citation count. Research limitations/implications Other disciplines may use Mendeley more or less than the ten investigated here. The results are dependent on Scopus's indexing practices, and Mendeley reader counts can be manipulated and have national and seniority biases. Practical implications Mendeley reader counts during the month of publication are more powerful than Scopus citations for comparing the average impacts of groups of documents but are not high enough to differentiate between the impacts of typical individual articles. Originality/value This is the first multi-disciplinary and systematic analysis of Mendeley reader counts from the publication month of an article.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.2, S.174-183

0.03009541 = product of:
  0.08025443 = sum of:
    0.05186718 = weight(_text_:use in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05186718 = score(doc=3329,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.4101866 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
    0.020662563 = weight(_text_:of in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020662563 = score(doc=3329,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=3329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

This article studies citation practices in the arts and humanities from a theoretical and conceptual viewpoint, drawing on studies from fields like linguistics, history, library & information science, and the sociology of science. The use of references in the humanities is discussed in connection with the growing interest in the possibilities of applying citation analysis to humanistic disciplines. The study shows how the use of references within the humanities is connected to concepts of originality, to intellectual organization, and to searching and writing. Finally, it is acknowledged that the use of references is connected to stylistic, epistemological, and organizational differences, and these differences must be taken into account when applying citation analysis to humanistic disciplines.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.2, S.310-318

0.030020595 = product of:
  0.12008238 = sum of:
    0.023667008 = weight(_text_:of in 4044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023667008 = score(doc=4044,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.36650562 = fieldWeight in 4044, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4044)
    0.09641537 = sum of:
      0.024675604 = weight(_text_:on in 4044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024675604 = score(doc=4044,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.271686 = fieldWeight in 4044, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4044)
      0.07173977 = weight(_text_:line in 4044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07173977 = score(doc=4044,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 4044, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4044)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Research on scientific misconduct relies increasingly on retractions of articles. An interdisciplinary line of research has been established that empirically assesses the phenomenon of scientific misconduct using information on retractions, and thus aims to shed light on aspects of misconduct that previously were hidden. However, comparability and interpretability of studies are to a certain extent impeded by an absence of standards in corpus delineation and by the fact that the validity of this empirical data basis has never been systematically scrutinized. This article assesses the conceptual and empirical delineation of retractions against related publication types through a comparative analysis of the coverage and consistency of retraction annotation in the databases PubMed and the Web of Science (WoS), which are both commonly used for empicial studies on retractions. The searching and linking approaches of the WoS were subsequently evaluated. The results indicate that a considerable number of PubMed retracted publications and retractions are not labeled as such in the WoS or are indistinguishable from corrections, which is highly relevant for corpus and sample strategies in the WoS.

Object

Web of Science

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.2, S.318-328

0.029509317 = product of:
  0.059018634 = sum of:
    0.024199642 = weight(_text_:use in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024199642 = score(doc=4633,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.19138055 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    0.014801081 = weight(_text_:of in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014801081 = score(doc=4633,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2292085 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    0.008828212 = product of:
      0.017656423 = sum of:
        0.017656423 = weight(_text_:on in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017656423 = score(doc=4633,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0111897 = product of:
      0.0223794 = sum of:
        0.0223794 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0223794 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX. Design/methodology/approach The authors perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, platform offers for books. The authors use two distinct data sets of books. On the one hand, the authors analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other hand, the authors use Clarivate's Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com's capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, the authors compare the findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX. Findings Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries, such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, the authors find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. The comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools. Practical implications This study targets different audience which can benefit from the findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool. Originality/value This is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com's functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via PlumX.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 70(2018) no.6, S.691-707

0.029267382 = product of:
  0.058534764 = sum of:
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=671,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
    0.017640345 = weight(_text_:of in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017640345 = score(doc=671,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 671, 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=671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

Although it is commonly expected that the citation context of a reference is likely to provide more detailed and direct information about the nature of a citation, few studies in the literature have specifically addressed the extent to which the information in different parts of a scientific publication differs. Do abstracts tend to use conceptually broader terms than sentences in a citation context in the body of a publication? In this article, we propose a method to analyze and compare latent topics in scientific publications, in particular, from abstracts of papers that cited a target reference and from sentences that cited the target reference. We conducted an experiment and applied topical modeling techniques to full-text papers in eight biomedicine journals. Topics derived from the two sources are compared in terms of their similarities and broad-narrow relationships defined based on information entropy. The results show that abstracts and citation contexts are characterized by distinct sets of topics with moderate overlaps. Furthermore, the results confirm that topics from abstracts of citing papers have broader terms than topics from citation contexts formed by citing sentences. The method and the findings could be used to enhance and extend the current methodologies for research evaluation and citation evaluation.

Date

22. 3.2013 19:50:00

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.3, S.627-639

0.028335677 = product of:
  0.07556181 = sum of:
    0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020873476 = score(doc=4143,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
    0.037047986 = weight(_text_:use in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037047986 = score(doc=4143,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.29299045 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
    0.017640345 = weight(_text_:of in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017640345 = score(doc=4143,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

This work identifies changes in dominant topics in library and information science (LIS) over time, by analyzing the 3,121 doctoral dissertations completed between 1930 and 2009 at North American Library and Information Science programs. The authors utilize latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) to identify latent topics diachronically and to identify representative dissertations of those topics. The findings indicate that the main topics in LIS have changed substantially from those in the initial period (1930-1969) to the present (2000-2009). However, some themes occurred in multiple periods, representing core areas of the field: library history occurred in the first two periods; citation analysis in the second and third periods; and information-seeking behavior in the fourth and last period. Two topics occurred in three of the five periods: information retrieval and information use. One of the notable changes in the topics was the diminishing use of the word library (and related terms). This has implications for the provision of doctoral education in LIS. This work is compared to other earlier analyses and provides validation for the use of LDA in topic analysis of a discipline.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.185-204