-
Stuart, D.: Web metrics for library and information professionals (2014)
0.14
0.13979515 = product of:
0.33550838 = sum of:
0.09397466 = weight(_text_:web in 2274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09397466 = score(doc=2274,freq=82.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.808072 = fieldWeight in 2274, product of:
9.055386 = tf(freq=82.0), with freq of:
82.0 = termFreq=82.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2274)
0.040716566 = weight(_text_:world in 2274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040716566 = score(doc=2274,freq=8.0), product of:
0.13696888 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.29726875 = fieldWeight in 2274, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2274)
0.060490884 = weight(_text_:wide in 2274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060490884 = score(doc=2274,freq=10.0), product of:
0.1578897 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.38312116 = fieldWeight in 2274, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2274)
0.09397466 = weight(_text_:web in 2274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09397466 = score(doc=2274,freq=82.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.808072 = fieldWeight in 2274, product of:
9.055386 = tf(freq=82.0), with freq of:
82.0 = termFreq=82.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2274)
0.046351604 = product of:
0.09270321 = sum of:
0.09270321 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09270321 = score(doc=2274,freq=8.0), product of:
0.20667298 = queryWeight, product of:
5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.4485502 = fieldWeight in 2274, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2274)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.41666666 = coord(5/12)
- Abstract
- This is a practical guide to using web metrics to measure impact and demonstrate value. The web provides an opportunity to collect a host of different metrics, from those associated with social media accounts and websites to more traditional research outputs. This book is a clear guide for library and information professionals as to what web metrics are available and how to assess and use them to make informed decisions and demonstrate value. As individuals and organizations increasingly use the web in addition to traditional publishing avenues and formats, this book provides the tools to unlock web metrics and evaluate the impact of this content. The key topics covered include: bibliometrics, webometrics and web metrics; data collection tools; evaluating impact on the web; evaluating social media impact; investigating relationships between actors; exploring traditional publications in a new environment; web metrics and the web of data; the future of web metrics and the library and information professional. The book will provide a practical introduction to web metrics for a wide range of library and information professionals, from the bibliometrician wanting to demonstrate the wider impact of a researcher's work than can be demonstrated through traditional citations databases, to the reference librarian wanting to measure how successfully they are engaging with their users on Twitter. It will be a valuable tool for anyone who wants to not only understand the impact of content, but demonstrate this impact to others within the organization and beyond.
- Content
- 1. Introduction. MetricsIndicators -- Web metrics and Ranganathan's laws of library science -- Web metrics for the library and information professional -- The aim of this book -- The structure of the rest of this book -- 2. Bibliometrics, webometrics and web metrics. Web metrics -- Information science metrics -- Web analytics -- Relational and evaluative metrics -- Evaluative web metrics -- Relational web metrics -- Validating the results -- 3. Data collection tools. The anatomy of a URL, web links and the structure of the web -- Search engines 1.0 -- Web crawlers -- Search engines 2.0 -- Post search engine 2.0: fragmentation -- 4. Evaluating impact on the web. Websites -- Blogs -- Wikis -- Internal metrics -- External metrics -- A systematic approach to content analysis -- 5. Evaluating social media impact. Aspects of social network sites -- Typology of social network sites -- Research and tools for specific sites and services -- Other social network sites -- URL shorteners: web analytic links on any site -- General social media impact -- Sentiment analysis -- 6. Investigating relationships between actors. Social network analysis methods -- Sources for relational network analysis -- 7. Exploring traditional publications in a new environment. More bibliographic items -- Full text analysis -- Greater context -- 8. Web metrics and the web of data. The web of data -- Building the semantic web -- Implications of the web of data for web metrics -- Investigating the web of data today -- SPARQL -- Sindice -- LDSpider: an RDF web crawler -- 9. The future of web metrics and the library and information professional. How far we have come -- The future of web metrics -- The future of the library and information professional and web metrics.
- RSWK
- Bibliothek / World Wide Web / World Wide Web 2.0 / Analyse / Statistik
Bibliometrie / Semantic Web / Soziale Software
- Subject
- Bibliothek / World Wide Web / World Wide Web 2.0 / Analyse / Statistik
Bibliometrie / Semantic Web / Soziale Software
-
Haustein, S.; Sugimoto, C.; Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication : Guest editorial (2015)
0.07
0.06770995 = product of:
0.1625039 = sum of:
0.08155354 = weight(_text_:filter in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08155354 = score(doc=3809,freq=4.0), product of:
0.24899386 = queryWeight, product of:
6.987357 = idf(docFreq=110, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.32753235 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
6.987357 = idf(docFreq=110, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.028129177 = weight(_text_:web in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028129177 = score(doc=3809,freq=10.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.24187797 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.017449958 = weight(_text_:world in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017449958 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13696888 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.12740089 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.028129177 = weight(_text_:web in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028129177 = score(doc=3809,freq=10.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.24187797 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.007242058 = product of:
0.014484116 = sum of:
0.014484116 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014484116 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12478739 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.41666666 = coord(5/12)
- Abstract
- One of the solutions to help scientists filter the most relevant publications and, thus, to stay current on developments in their fields during the transition from "little science" to "big science", was the introduction of citation indexing as a Wellsian "World Brain" (Garfield, 1964) of scientific information: It is too much to expect a research worker to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the bibliographic descendants of antecedent papers. It would not be excessive to demand that the thorough scholar check all papers that have cited or criticized such papers, if they could be located quickly. The citation index makes this check practicable (Garfield, 1955, p. 108). In retrospective, citation indexing can be perceived as a pre-social web version of crowdsourcing, as it is based on the concept that the community of citing authors outperforms indexers in highlighting cognitive links between papers, particularly on the level of specific ideas and concepts (Garfield, 1983). Over the last 50 years, citation analysis and more generally, bibliometric methods, have developed from information retrieval tools to research evaluation metrics, where they are presumed to make scientific funding more efficient and effective (Moed, 2006). However, the dominance of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has also led to significant goal displacement (Merton, 1957) and the oversimplification of notions of "research productivity" and "scientific quality", creating adverse effects such as salami publishing, honorary authorships, citation cartels, and misuse of indicators (Binswanger, 2015; Cronin and Sugimoto, 2014; Frey and Osterloh, 2006; Haustein and Larivière, 2015; Weingart, 2005).
Furthermore, the rise of the web, and subsequently, the social web, has challenged the quasi-monopolistic status of the journal as the main form of scholarly communication and citation indices as the primary assessment mechanisms. Scientific communication is becoming more open, transparent, and diverse: publications are increasingly open access; manuscripts, presentations, code, and data are shared online; research ideas and results are discussed and criticized openly on blogs; and new peer review experiments, with open post publication assessment by anonymous or non-anonymous referees, are underway. The diversification of scholarly production and assessment, paired with the increasing speed of the communication process, leads to an increased information overload (Bawden and Robinson, 2008), demanding new filters. The concept of altmetrics, short for alternative (to citation) metrics, was created out of an attempt to provide a filter (Priem et al., 2010) and to steer against the oversimplification of the measurement of scientific success solely on the basis of number of journal articles published and citations received, by considering a wider range of research outputs and metrics (Piwowar, 2013). Although the term altmetrics was introduced in a tweet in 2010 (Priem, 2010), the idea of capturing traces - "polymorphous mentioning" (Cronin et al., 1998, p. 1320) - of scholars and their documents on the web to measure "impact" of science in a broader manner than citations was introduced years before, largely in the context of webometrics (Almind and Ingwersen, 1997; Thelwall et al., 2005):
There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Xu, C.; Ma, B.; Chen, X.; Ma, F.: Social tagging in the scholarly world (2013)
0.05
0.054695513 = product of:
0.32817307 = sum of:
0.29908982 = weight(_text_:tagging in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.29908982 = score(doc=1091,freq=38.0), product of:
0.21038401 = queryWeight, product of:
5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
1.4216375 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
38.0 = termFreq=38.0
5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
0.029083263 = weight(_text_:world in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029083263 = score(doc=1091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13696888 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
0.16666667 = coord(2/12)
- Abstract
- The number of research studies on social tagging has increased rapidly in the past years, but few of them highlight the characteristics and research trends in social tagging. A set of 862 academic documents relating to social tagging and published from 2005 to 2011 was thus examined using bibliometric analysis as well as the social network analysis technique. The results show that social tagging, as a research area, develops rapidly and attracts an increasing number of new entrants. There are no key authors, publication sources, or research groups that dominate the research domain of social tagging. Research on social tagging appears to focus mainly on the following three aspects: (a) components and functions of social tagging (e.g., tags, tagging objects, and tagging network), (b) taggers' behaviors and interface design, and (c) tags' organization and usage in social tagging. The trend suggest that more researchers turn to the latter two integrated with human computer interface and information retrieval, although the first aspect is the fundamental one in social tagging. Also, more studies relating to social tagging pay attention to multimedia tagging objects and not only text tagging. Previous research on social tagging was limited to a few subject domains such as information science and computer science. As an interdisciplinary research area, social tagging is anticipated to attract more researchers from different disciplines. More practical applications, especially in high-tech companies, is an encouraging research trend in social tagging.
- Theme
- Social tagging
-
Romero-Frías, E.; Vaughan, L.: European political trends viewed through patterns of Web linking (2010)
0.04
0.0428121 = product of:
0.1712484 = sum of:
0.0663011 = weight(_text_:web in 4002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0663011 = score(doc=4002,freq=20.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 4002, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4002)
0.038646206 = weight(_text_:wide in 4002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038646206 = score(doc=4002,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1578897 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 4002, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4002)
0.0663011 = weight(_text_:web in 4002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0663011 = score(doc=4002,freq=20.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 4002, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4002)
0.25 = coord(3/12)
- Abstract
- This study explored the feasibility of using Web hyperlink data to study European political Web sites. Ninety-six European Union (EU) political parties belonging to a wide range of ideological, historical, and linguistic backgrounds were included in the study. Various types of data on Web links to party Web sites were collected. The Web colink data were visualized using multidimensional scaling (MDS), while the inlink data were analyzed with a 2-way analysis of variance test. The results showed that Web hyperlink data did reflect some political patterns in the EU. The MDS maps showed clusters of political parties along ideological, historical, linguistic, and social lines. Statistical analysis based on inlink counts further confirmed that there was a significant difference along the line of the political history of a country, such that left-wing parties in the former communist countries received considerably fewer inlinks to their Web sites than left-wing parties in countries without a history of communism did. The study demonstrated the possibility of using Web hyperlink data to gain insights into political situations in the EU. This suggests the richness of Web hyperlink data and its potential in studying social-political phenomena.
-
Crespo, J.A.; Herranz, N.; Li, Y.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level (2014)
0.04
0.042781707 = product of:
0.12834512 = sum of:
0.03631461 = weight(_text_:web in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03631461 = score(doc=1291,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
0.038646206 = weight(_text_:wide in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038646206 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1578897 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
0.03631461 = weight(_text_:web in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03631461 = score(doc=1291,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
0.017069694 = product of:
0.034139387 = sum of:
0.034139387 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034139387 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12478739 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(4/12)
- 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
-
Yang, S.; Han, R.; Ding, J.; Song, Y.: ¬The distribution of Web citations (2012)
0.03
0.02905169 = product of:
0.17431013 = sum of:
0.08715507 = weight(_text_:web in 2735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08715507 = score(doc=2735,freq=24.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.7494315 = fieldWeight in 2735, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2735)
0.08715507 = weight(_text_:web in 2735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08715507 = score(doc=2735,freq=24.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.7494315 = fieldWeight in 2735, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2735)
0.16666667 = coord(2/12)
- Abstract
- A substantial amount of research has focused on the persistence or availability of Web citations. The present study analyzes Web citation distributions. Web citations are defined as the mentions of the URLs of Web pages (Web resources) as references in academic papers. The present paper primarily focuses on the analysis of the URLs of Web citations and uses three sets of data, namely, Set 1 from the Humanities and Social Science Index in China (CSSCI, 1998-2009), Set 2 from the publications of two international computer science societies, Communications of the ACM and IEEE Computer (1995-1999), and Set 3 from the medical science database, MEDLINE, of the National Library of Medicine (1994-2006). Web citation distributions are investigated based on Web site types, Web page types, URL frequencies, URL depths, URL lengths, and year of article publication. Results show significant differences in the Web citation distributions among the three data sets. However, when the URLs of Web citations with the same hostnames are aggregated, the distributions in the three data sets are consistent with the power law (the Lotka function).
-
Vaughan, L.; Ninkov, A.: ¬A new approach to web co-link analysis (2018)
0.03
0.027818855 = product of:
0.11127542 = sum of:
0.03631461 = weight(_text_:web in 4256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03631461 = score(doc=4256,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 4256, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4256)
0.038646206 = weight(_text_:wide in 4256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038646206 = score(doc=4256,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1578897 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 4256, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4256)
0.03631461 = weight(_text_:web in 4256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03631461 = score(doc=4256,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 4256, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4256)
0.25 = coord(3/12)
- Abstract
- Numerous web co-link studies have analyzed a wide variety of websites ranging from those in the academic and business arena to those dealing with politics and governments. Such studies uncover rich information about these organizations. In recent years, however, there has been a dearth of co-link analysis, mainly due to the lack of sources from which co-link data can be collected directly. Although several commercial services such as Alexa provide inlink data, none provide co-link data. We propose a new approach to web co-link analysis that can alleviate this problem so that researchers can continue to mine the valuable information contained in co-link data. The proposed approach has two components: (a) generating co-link data from inlink data using a computer program; (b) analyzing co-link data at the site level in addition to the page level that previous co-link analyses have used. The site-level analysis has the potential of expanding co-link data sources. We tested this proposed approach by analyzing a group of websites focused on vaccination using Moz inlink data. We found that the approach is feasible, as we were able to generate co-link data from inlink data and analyze the co-link data with multidimensional scaling.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: ¬The operationalization of "fields" as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics : the cases of "library and information science" and "science & technology studies" (2016)
0.03
0.026515432 = product of:
0.10606173 = sum of:
0.035580907 = weight(_text_:web in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035580907 = score(doc=2779,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.034899916 = weight(_text_:world in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034899916 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13696888 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.035580907 = weight(_text_:web in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035580907 = score(doc=2779,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.25 = coord(3/12)
- Abstract
- Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web of Science subject categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "information science & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of "science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" be replaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New research questions can then be envisaged.
- Aid
- Web of Science
-
Gazni, A.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Didegah, F.: Mapping world scientific collaboration : authors, institutions, and countries (2012)
0.02
0.024918733 = product of:
0.09967493 = sum of:
0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025159499 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1141, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1141)
0.049355935 = weight(_text_:world in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049355935 = score(doc=1141,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13696888 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.36034414 = fieldWeight in 1141, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1141)
0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025159499 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1141, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1141)
0.25 = coord(3/12)
- Abstract
- International collaboration is being heralded as the hallmark of contemporary scientific production. Yet little quantitative evidence has portrayed the landscape and trends of such collaboration. To this end, 14,000,000 documents indexed in Thomson Reuters's Web of Science (WoS) were studied to provide a state-of-the-art description of scientific collaborations across the world. The results indicate that the number of authors in the largest research teams have not significantly grown during the past decade; however, the number of smaller research teams has seen significant increases in growth. In terms of composition, the largest teams have become more diverse than the latter teams and tend more toward interinstitutional and international collaboration. Investigating the size of teams showed large variation between fields. Mapping scientific cooperation at the country level reveals that Western countries situated at the core of the map are extensively cooperating with each other. High-impact institutions are significantly more collaborative than others. This work should inform policy makers, administrators, and those interested in the progression of scientific collaboration.
-
Thelwall, M.; Klitkou, A.; Verbeek, A.; Stuart, D.; Vincent, C.: Policy-relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields (2010)
0.02
0.024173612 = product of:
0.09669445 = sum of:
0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025159499 = score(doc=3574,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
0.046375446 = weight(_text_:wide in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046375446 = score(doc=3574,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1578897 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025159499 = score(doc=3574,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
0.25 = coord(3/12)
- Abstract
- Despite over 10 years of research there is no agreement on the most suitable roles for Webometric indicators in support of research policy and almost no field-based Webometrics. This article partly fills these gaps by analyzing the potential of policy-relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields with the help of 4 case studies. Although Webometrics cannot provide robust indicators of knowledge flows or research impact, it can provide some evidence of networking and mutual awareness. The scope of Webometrics is also relatively wide, including not only research organizations and firms but also intermediary groups like professional associations, Web portals, and government agencies. Webometrics can, therefore, provide evidence about the research process to compliment peer review, bibliometric, and patent indicators: tracking the early, mainly prepublication development of new fields and research funding initiatives, assessing the role and impact of intermediary organizations and the need for new ones, and monitoring the extent of mutual awareness in particular research areas.
-
West, J.D.; Jensen, M.C.; Dandrea, R.J.; Gordon, G.J.; Bergstrom, C.T.: Author-level Eigenfactor metrics : evaluating the influence of authors, institutions, and countries within the social science research network community (2013)
0.02
0.022459663 = product of:
0.13475798 = sum of:
0.096111774 = weight(_text_:filter in 685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.096111774 = score(doc=685,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24899386 = queryWeight, product of:
6.987357 = idf(docFreq=110, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.38600057 = fieldWeight in 685, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.987357 = idf(docFreq=110, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=685)
0.038646206 = weight(_text_:wide in 685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038646206 = score(doc=685,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1578897 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 685, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=685)
0.16666667 = coord(2/12)
- Abstract
- In this article, we show how the Eigenfactor score, originally designed for ranking scholarly journals, can be adapted to rank the scholarly output of authors, institutions, and countries based on author-level citation data. Using the methods described in this article, we provide Eigenfactor rankings for 84,808 disambiguated authors of 240,804 papers in the Social Science Research Network (SSRN)-a preprint and postprint archive devoted to the rapid dissemination of scholarly research in the social sciences and humanities. As an additive metric, the Eigenfactor scores are readily computed for collectives such as departments or institutions as well. We show that a collective's Eigenfactor score can be computed either by summing the Eigenfactor scores of its members or by working directly with a collective-level cross-citation matrix. We provide Eigenfactor rankings for institutions and countries in the SSRN repository. With a network-wide comparison of Eigenfactor scores and download tallies, we demonstrate that Eigenfactor scores provide information that is both different from and complementary to that provided by download counts. We see author-level ranking as one filter for navigating the scholarly literature, and note that such rankings generate incentives for more open scholarship, because authors are rewarded for making their work available to the community as early as possible and before formal publication.
-
Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015)
0.02
0.022424728 = product of:
0.08969891 = sum of:
0.03631461 = weight(_text_:web in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03631461 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.03631461 = weight(_text_:web in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03631461 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.017069694 = product of:
0.034139387 = sum of:
0.034139387 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034139387 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12478739 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, 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=2590)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(3/12)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23
-
Huang, M.-H.; Wu, L.-L.; Wu, Y.-C.: ¬A study of research collaboration in the pre-web and post-web stages : a coauthorship analysis of the information systems discipline (2015)
0.02
0.022100367 = product of:
0.1326022 = sum of:
0.0663011 = weight(_text_:web in 1729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0663011 = score(doc=1729,freq=20.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 1729, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1729)
0.0663011 = weight(_text_:web in 1729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0663011 = score(doc=1729,freq=20.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 1729, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1729)
0.16666667 = coord(2/12)
- Abstract
- To explore the possible facilitative role of the Internet in the process of research collaboration, this study endeavored to systematically compare the phenomenon of co-authorship and the impacts of co-authorship between pre-web and post-web stages in the field of information systems. Three hypotheses were proposed in this study. First, research collaboration increases in the post-web stage relative to the pre-web stage. Second, research collaboration is positively related to research impact, operationally defined as the number of citations. Lastly, the positive relationship between research collaboration and research impact is stronger in the post-web stage than that in the pre-web stage. Articles published in the field of information systems in both time periods were collected to test the hypotheses. The empirical results strongly support H1 and H2, showing that co-authorship increases in the post-web stage, and positively correlates with citations received by information systems articles. The positive effects of interdisciplinary collaborations and collaborations among multiple authors are enhanced in the post-web stage, but such enhancement is not found for international collaboration. H3 is partially supported.
-
Bornmann, L.; Leydesdorff, L.: Which cities produce more excellent papers than can be expected? : a new mapping approach, using Google Maps, based on statistical significance testing (2011)
0.02
0.021304728 = product of:
0.085218914 = sum of:
0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025159499 = score(doc=4767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4767, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4767)
0.034899916 = weight(_text_:world in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034899916 = score(doc=4767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13696888 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 4767, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4767)
0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025159499 = score(doc=4767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4767, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4767)
0.25 = coord(3/12)
- Abstract
- The methods presented in this paper allow for a statistical analysis revealing centers of excellence around the world using programs that are freely available. Based on Web of Science data (a fee-based database), field-specific excellence can be identified in cities where highly cited papers were published more frequently than can be expected. Compared to the mapping approaches published hitherto, our approach is more analytically oriented by allowing the assessment of an observed number of excellent papers for a city against the expected number. Top performers in output are cities in which authors are located who publish a statistically significant higher number of highly cited papers than can be expected for these cities. As sample data for physics, chemistry, and psychology show, these cities do not necessarily have a high output of highly cited papers.
-
Winnink, J.J.; Tijssen, R.J.W.; Raan, F.J. van: Theory-changing breakthroughs in science : the impact of research teamwork on scientific discoveries (2016)
0.02
0.021304728 = product of:
0.085218914 = sum of:
0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 2898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025159499 = score(doc=2898,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2898, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2898)
0.034899916 = weight(_text_:world in 2898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034899916 = score(doc=2898,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13696888 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 2898, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2898)
0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 2898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025159499 = score(doc=2898,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2898, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2898)
0.25 = coord(3/12)
- Abstract
- We have developed and tested an evidence-based method for early-stage identification of scientific discoveries. Scholarly publications are analyzed to track and trace breakthrough processes as well as their impact on world science. The focus in this study is on the incremental discovery of the ubiquitin-mediated proteolytic system in the late 1970s by a small international team of collaborating researchers. Analysis of their groundbreaking research articles, all produced within a relatively short period of time, and the network of citing articles shows the cumulative effects of the intense collaboration within a small group of researchers working on the same subject. Using bibliographic data from the Web of Science database and the PATSTAT patents database in combination with expert opinions shows that these discoveries accumulated into a new technology. These first findings suggest that potential breakthrough discoveries can be identified at a relatively early stage by careful analysis of publication and citation patterns.
-
Heneberg, P.: Parallel worlds of citable documents and others : inflated commissioned opinion articles enhance scientometric indicators (2014)
0.02
0.02076561 = product of:
0.08306244 = sum of:
0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 1227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02096625 = score(doc=1227,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1227, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1227)
0.041129943 = weight(_text_:world in 1227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041129943 = score(doc=1227,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13696888 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.30028677 = fieldWeight in 1227, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1227)
0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 1227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02096625 = score(doc=1227,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1227, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1227)
0.25 = coord(3/12)
- Abstract
- Scientometric indicators influence the standing of journals among peers, thus affecting decisions regarding manuscript submissions, scholars' careers, and funding. Here we hypothesize that impact-factor boosting (unethical behavior documented previously in several underperforming journals) should not be considered as exceptional, but that it affects even the top-tier journals. We performed a citation analysis of documents recently published in 11 prominent general science and biomedical journals. In these journals, only 12 to 79% of what they publish was considered original research, whereas editorial materials alone constituted 11 to 44% of the total document types published. Citations to commissioned opinion articles comprised 3 to 15% of the total citations to the journals within 3 postpublication years, with even a higher share occurring during the first postpublication year. An additional 4 to 15% of the citations were received by the journals from commissioned opinion articles published in other journals. Combined, the parallel world of uncitable documents was responsible for up to 30% of the total citations to the top-tier journals, with the highest values found for medical science journals (New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and the Lancet) and lower values found for the Science, Nature, and Cell series journals. Self-citations to some of the top-tier journals reach values higher than the total citation counts accumulated by papers in most of the Web of Science-indexed journals. Most of the self-citations were generated by commissioned opinion articles. The parallel world of supposedly uncitable documents flourishes and severely distorts the commonly used scientometric indicators.
-
McCain, K.W.: Eponymy and obliteration by incorporation : The case of the "Nash Equilibrium" (2011)
0.02
0.020144677 = product of:
0.08057871 = sum of:
0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 4479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02096625 = score(doc=4479,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4479, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4479)
0.038646206 = weight(_text_:wide in 4479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038646206 = score(doc=4479,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1578897 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 4479, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4479)
0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 4479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02096625 = score(doc=4479,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4479, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4479)
0.25 = coord(3/12)
- Abstract
- In order to examine the phenomena of eponymy and Obliteration by Incorporation at both the aggregate and individual subject level, the literature relating to the game-theoretic concept of the Nash Equilibrium was studied over the period 1950-2008. Almost 5,300 bibliographic database records for publications explicitly citing at least one of two papers by John Nash and/or using the phrase "Nash Equilibrium/Nash Equilibria" were retrieved from the Web of Science and various subject-related databases. Breadth of influence is demonstrated by the wide variety of subject areas in which Nash Equilibrium-related publications occur, including in the natural and social sciences, humanities, law, and medicine. Fifty percent of all items have been published since 2002, suggesting that Nash's papers have experienced "delayed recognition." A degree of Obliteration by Incorporation is observed in that implicit citations (use of the phrase without citation) increased over the time period studied, although the proportion of all citations that are implicit has remained relatively stable during the most recent decade with an annual rate of between 60% and 70%; subject areas vary in their level of obliteration.
-
Calculating the h-index : Web of Science, Scopus or Google Scholar? (2011)
0.02
0.01976717 = product of:
0.11860302 = sum of:
0.05930151 = weight(_text_:web in 854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05930151 = score(doc=854,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 854, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=854)
0.05930151 = weight(_text_:web in 854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05930151 = score(doc=854,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 854, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=854)
0.16666667 = coord(2/12)
- Object
- Web of Science
-
Thelwall, M.: Web indicators for research evaluation : a practical guide (2016)
0.02
0.01976717 = product of:
0.11860302 = sum of:
0.05930151 = weight(_text_:web in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05930151 = score(doc=3384,freq=16.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
0.05930151 = weight(_text_:web in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05930151 = score(doc=3384,freq=16.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
0.16666667 = coord(2/12)
- 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.
-
Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011)
0.02
0.018900909 = product of:
0.075603634 = sum of:
0.02935275 = weight(_text_:web in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02935275 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
0.02935275 = weight(_text_:web in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02935275 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
0.016898135 = product of:
0.03379627 = sum of:
0.03379627 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03379627 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12478739 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.25 = coord(3/12)
- 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
