-
Dobrota, M.; Dobrota, M.: ARWU ranking uncertainty and sensitivity : what if the award factor was Excluded? (2016)
0.00
0.0029042996 = product of:
0.023234397 = sum of:
0.0071530542 = weight(_text_:und in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0071530542 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
0.0071530542 = weight(_text_:und in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0071530542 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
0.008928288 = product of:
0.017856576 = sum of:
0.017856576 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017856576 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2652, 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=2652)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.125 = coord(3/24)
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 14:40:53
- Footnote
- Autoren: Milan Dobrota und Marina Dobrota
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.00
0.0027628213 = product of:
0.033153854 = sum of:
0.012109677 = weight(_text_:der in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012109677 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.2467987 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.021044176 = product of:
0.042088352 = sum of:
0.042088352 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042088352 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:22:28
-
Calculating the h-index : Web of Science, Scopus or Google Scholar? (2011)
0.00
0.0025601625 = product of:
0.030721948 = sum of:
0.01861227 = weight(_text_:des in 854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01861227 = score(doc=854,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06083074 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.30596817 = fieldWeight in 854, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=854)
0.012109677 = weight(_text_:der in 854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012109677 = score(doc=854,freq=2.0), product of:
0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.2467987 = fieldWeight in 854, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=854)
0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
- Abstract
- Gegenüberstellung der Berechnung des h-Index in den drei Tools mit Beispiel Stephen Hawking (WoS: 59, Scopus: 19, Google Scholar: 76)
-
Coleman, A.: Assessing the value of a journal beyond the impact factor (2007)
0.00
0.0025573457 = product of:
0.061376292 = sum of:
0.061376292 = weight(_text_:1960 in 447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061376292 = score(doc=447,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15622076 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.39288178 = fieldWeight in 447, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=447)
0.041666668 = coord(1/24)
- Abstract
- The well-documented limitations of journal impact factor rankings and perceptual ratings, the evolving scholarly communication system, the open-access movement, and increasing globalization are some reasons that prompted an examination of journal value rather than just impact. Using a single, specialized journal established in 1960, about education for the Information professions, the author discusses the fall from citation grace of the Journal of Education for Library and Information Science (JELIS) in terms of impact factor and declining subscriptions. Journal evaluation studies in Library and Information Science based on subjective ratings are used to show the high rank of JELIS during the same period (1984-2004) and explain why impact factors and perceptual ratings either singly or jointly are inadequate measures for understanding the value of specialized, scholarly journals such as JELIS. This case study was also a search for bibliometric measures of journal value. Three measures, namely journal attraction power, author associativity, and journal consumption power, were selected; two of them were redefined as journal measures of affinity (the proportion of foreign authors), associativity (the amount of collaboration), and calculated as objective indicators of journal value. The affinity and associativity for JELIS calculated for 1984, 1994, 2004, and consumption calculated for 1985 and 1994 show a holding pattern; however, they also reveal interesting dimensions for future study. Journal value is multidimensional and citations do not capture all the facets; costs, benefits, and measures for informative and scientific value must be distinguished and developed in a fuller model of journal value.
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.; Cardona, M.: Reference standards and reference multipliers for the comparison of the citation impact of papers published in different time periods (2010)
0.00
0.0025573457 = product of:
0.061376292 = sum of:
0.061376292 = weight(_text_:1960 in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061376292 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15622076 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.39288178 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
0.041666668 = coord(1/24)
- Abstract
- In this study, reference standards and reference multipliers are suggested as a means to compare the citation impact of earlier research publications in physics (from the period of "Little Science" in the early 20th century) with that of contemporary papers (from the period of "Big Science," beginning around 1960). For the development of time-specific reference standards, the authors determined (a) the mean citation rates of papers in selected physics journals as well as (b) the mean citation rates of all papers in physics published in 1900 (Little Science) and in 2000 (Big Science); this was accomplished by relying on the processes of field-specific standardization in bibliometry. For the sake of developing reference multipliers with which the citation impact of earlier papers can be adjusted to the citation impact of contemporary papers, they combined the reference standards calculated for 1900 and 2000 into their ratio. The use of reference multipliers is demonstrated by means of two examples involving the time adjusted h index values for Max Planck and Albert Einstein.
-
Larivière, V.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Cronin, B.: ¬A bibliometric chronicling of library and information science's first hundred years (2012)
0.00
0.0025573457 = product of:
0.061376292 = sum of:
0.061376292 = weight(_text_:1960 in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061376292 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15622076 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.39288178 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
0.041666668 = coord(1/24)
- Abstract
- This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.
-
Vaughan, L.; Yang, R.: Web data as academic and business quality estimates : a comparison of three data sources (2012)
0.00
0.0025573457 = product of:
0.061376292 = sum of:
0.061376292 = weight(_text_:1960 in 452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061376292 = score(doc=452,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15622076 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.39288178 = fieldWeight in 452, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=452)
0.041666668 = coord(1/24)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.10, S.1960-1972
-
Visscher, A. De: What does the g-index really measure? (2011)
0.00
0.0025573457 = product of:
0.061376292 = sum of:
0.061376292 = weight(_text_:1960 in 1053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061376292 = score(doc=1053,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15622076 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.39288178 = fieldWeight in 1053, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1053)
0.041666668 = coord(1/24)
- Footnote
- Vgl.: Visscher, A. De: Response to "remarks on the paper by a. De Visscher, 'what does the g-index really measure?' ". In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2013) no.9, S.1960-1962.
-
Zhou, H.; Guns, R.; Engels, T.C.E.: Are social sciences becoming more interdisciplinary? : evidence from publications 1960-2014 (2022)
0.00
0.0025573457 = product of:
0.061376292 = sum of:
0.061376292 = weight(_text_:1960 in 646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061376292 = score(doc=646,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15622076 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.39288178 = fieldWeight in 646, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=646)
0.041666668 = coord(1/24)
-
Solla Price, D. de: Little science, big science : Von der Studierstube zur Großforschung (1974)
0.00
0.0023825294 = product of:
0.028590351 = sum of:
0.014889815 = weight(_text_:des in 272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014889815 = score(doc=272,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06083074 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.24477452 = fieldWeight in 272, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=272)
0.013700536 = weight(_text_:der in 272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013700536 = score(doc=272,freq=4.0), product of:
0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.27922085 = fieldWeight in 272, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=272)
0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
- Abstract
- Big Science ist so neu, daß sich viele von uns ihrer Anfänge erinnern. Big Science ist so groß, daß sich viele von uns vor den Ausmaßen des Monsters, das wir geschaffen haben, zu fürchten beginnen. Big Science ist so anders als alles Frühere, daß eine Betrachtung der 'Little Science', die einst unsere Lebensart war, nur ein wehmütiger Rückblick ist
-
Vezzani, A.; Coad, A.; Gkotsis, P.: Concerns about the consequences of patenting on scientometric research (2017)
0.00
0.0018806573 = product of:
0.022567887 = sum of:
0.010458209 = product of:
0.031374626 = sum of:
0.031374626 = weight(_text_:p in 3744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031374626 = score(doc=3744,freq=2.0), product of:
0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.39725178 = fieldWeight in 3744, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3744)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.012109677 = weight(_text_:der in 3744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012109677 = score(doc=3744,freq=2.0), product of:
0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.2467987 = fieldWeight in 3744, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3744)
0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
- Content
- Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23762/full. - Der Brief ist dort frei verfügbar.
-
Neth, M.: Citation analysis and the Web (1998)
0.00
0.0017439354 = product of:
0.020927224 = sum of:
0.010510888 = product of:
0.021021776 = sum of:
0.021021776 = weight(_text_:29 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021021776 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07726968 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.010416336 = product of:
0.020832673 = sum of:
0.020832673 = weight(_text_:22 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020832673 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 108, 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=108)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
- Date
- 10. 1.1999 16:22:37
- Source
- Art documentation. 17(1998) no.1, S.29-33
-
Burrell, Q.L.: Predicting future citation behavior (2003)
0.00
0.0017439354 = product of:
0.020927224 = sum of:
0.010510888 = product of:
0.021021776 = sum of:
0.021021776 = weight(_text_:29 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021021776 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07726968 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.010416336 = product of:
0.020832673 = sum of:
0.020832673 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020832673 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
- Date
- 29. 3.2003 19:22:48
-
Pichappan, P.; Sangaranachiyar, S.: Ageing approach to scientific eponyms (1996)
0.00
0.0016892459 = product of:
0.020270951 = sum of:
0.008366567 = product of:
0.0250997 = sum of:
0.0250997 = weight(_text_:p in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0250997 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.31780142 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.011904384 = product of:
0.023808768 = sum of:
0.023808768 = weight(_text_:22 in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023808768 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
- Footnote
- Report presented at the 16th National Indian Association of Special Libraries and Information Centres Seminar Special Interest Group Meeting on Informatrics in Bombay, 19-22 Dec 94
-
Haycock, L.A.: Citation analysis of education dissertations for collection development (2004)
0.00
0.0014948016 = product of:
0.01793762 = sum of:
0.009009332 = product of:
0.018018665 = sum of:
0.018018665 = weight(_text_:29 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018018665 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07726968 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.008928288 = product of:
0.017856576 = sum of:
0.017856576 = weight(_text_:22 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017856576 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
17.12.2006 19:44:29
-
Garfield, E.; Paris, S.W.; Stock, W.G.: HistCite(TM) : a software tool for informetric analysis of citation linkage (2006)
0.00
0.0013908718 = product of:
0.016690461 = sum of:
0.0083452305 = weight(_text_:und in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0083452305 = score(doc=79,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
0.0083452305 = weight(_text_:und in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0083452305 = score(doc=79,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.391-400
-
Della Mea, V.; Demartini, G.; Di Gaspero, L.; Mizzaro, S.: Measuring retrieval effectiveness with Average Distance Measure (ADM) (2006)
0.00
0.0013908718 = product of:
0.016690461 = sum of:
0.0083452305 = weight(_text_:und in 774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0083452305 = score(doc=774,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 774, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=774)
0.0083452305 = weight(_text_:und in 774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0083452305 = score(doc=774,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 774, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=774)
0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.433-443
-
Alvarez, P.; Escalona, I.; Pulgarin, A.: What is wrong with obsolescence? (2000)
0.00
0.0012736882 = product of:
0.015284257 = sum of:
0.006274925 = product of:
0.018824775 = sum of:
0.018824775 = weight(_text_:p in 4858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018824775 = score(doc=4858,freq=2.0), product of:
0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 4858, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4858)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.009009332 = product of:
0.018018665 = sum of:
0.018018665 = weight(_text_:29 in 4858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018018665 = score(doc=4858,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07726968 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4858, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4858)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
- Date
- 8. 7.2000 18:29:03
-
Tang, L.; Shapira, P.; Youtie, J.: Is there a clubbing effect underlying Chinese research citation increases? (2015)
0.00
0.0012736882 = product of:
0.015284257 = sum of:
0.006274925 = product of:
0.018824775 = sum of:
0.018824775 = weight(_text_:p in 2169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018824775 = score(doc=2169,freq=2.0), product of:
0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 2169, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2169)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.009009332 = product of:
0.018018665 = sum of:
0.018018665 = weight(_text_:29 in 2169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018018665 = score(doc=2169,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07726968 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2169, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2169)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
- Date
- 4. 8.2015 20:42:29
-
Albarrán, P.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: References made and citations received by scientific articles (2011)
0.00
0.0012669344 = product of:
0.015203213 = sum of:
0.006274925 = product of:
0.018824775 = sum of:
0.018824775 = weight(_text_:p in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018824775 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 4185, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4185)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.008928288 = product of:
0.017856576 = sum of:
0.017856576 = weight(_text_:22 in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017856576 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.021966046 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4185, 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=4185)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
- Abstract
- This article studies massive evidence about references made and citations received after a 5-year citation window by 3.7 million articles published in 1998 to 2002 in 22 scientific fields. We find that the distributions of references made and citations received share a number of basic features across sciences. Reference distributions are rather skewed to the right while citation distributions are even more highly skewed: The mean is about 20 percentage points to the right of the median, and articles with a remarkable or an outstanding number of citations represent about 9% of the total. Moreover, the existence of a power law representing the upper tail of citation distributions cannot be rejected in 17 fields whose articles represent 74.7% of the total. Contrary to the evidence in other contexts, the value of the scale parameter is above 3.5 in 13 of the 17 cases. Finally, power laws are typically small, but capture a considerable proportion of the total citations received.
