Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.03
    0.028054593 = product of:
      0.056109186 = sum of:
        0.056109186 = product of:
          0.11221837 = sum of:
            0.11221837 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.11221837 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  2. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.02
    0.02479699 = product of:
      0.04959398 = sum of:
        0.04959398 = product of:
          0.09918796 = sum of:
            0.09918796 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09918796 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  3. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01
    0.014878195 = product of:
      0.02975639 = sum of:
        0.02975639 = product of:
          0.05951278 = sum of:
            0.05951278 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05951278 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  4. Ardanuy, J.: Sixty years of citation analysis studies in the humanities (1951-2010) (2013) 0.01
    0.01320525 = product of:
      0.0264105 = sum of:
        0.0264105 = product of:
          0.052821 = sum of:
            0.052821 = weight(_text_:language in 1015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.052821 = score(doc=1015,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.26008 = fieldWeight in 1015, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1015)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This article provides an overview of studies that have used citation analysis in the field of humanities in the period 1951 to 2010. The work is based on an exhaustive search in databases-particularly those in library and information science-and on citation chaining from papers on citation analysis. The results confirm that use of this technique in the humanities is limited, and although there was some growth in the 1970s and 1980s, it has stagnated in the past 2 decades. Most of the work has been done by research staff, but almost one third involves library staff, and 15% has been done by students. The study also showed that less than one fourth of the works used a citation database such as the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and that 21% of the works were in publications other than library and information science journals. The United States has the greatest output, and English is by far the most frequently used language, and 13.9% of the studies are in other languages.
  5. Vaughan, L.; Shaw , D.: Bibliographic and Web citations : what Is the difference? (2003) 0.01
    0.011004375 = product of:
      0.02200875 = sum of:
        0.02200875 = product of:
          0.0440175 = sum of:
            0.0440175 = weight(_text_:language in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0440175 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.21673335 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Vaughn, and Shaw look at the relationship between traditional citation and Web citation (not hyperlinks but rather textual mentions of published papers). Using English language research journals in ISI's 2000 Journal Citation Report - Information and Library Science category - 1209 full length papers published in 1997 in 46 journals were identified. Each was searched in Social Science Citation Index and on the Web using Google phrase search by entering the title in quotation marks, and followed for distinction where necessary with sub-titles, author's names, and journal title words. After removing obvious false drops, the number of web sites was recorded for comparison with the SSCI counts. A second sample from 1992 was also collected for examination. There were a total of 16,371 web citations to the selected papers. The top and bottom ranked four journals were then examined and every third citation to every third paper was selected and classified as to source type, domain, and country of origin. Web counts are much higher than ISI citation counts. Of the 46 journals from 1997, 26 demonstrated a significant correlation between Web and traditional citation counts, and 11 of the 15 in the 1992 sample also showed significant correlation. Journal impact factor in 1998 and 1999 correlated significantly with average Web citations per journal in the 1997 data, but at a low level. Thirty percent of web citations come from other papers posted on the web, and 30percent from listings of web based bibliographic services, while twelve percent come from class reading lists. High web citation journals often have web accessible tables of content.
  6. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.01
    0.010520472 = product of:
      0.021040944 = sum of:
        0.021040944 = product of:
          0.04208189 = sum of:
            0.04208189 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04208189 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
  7. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.01
    0.010520472 = product of:
      0.021040944 = sum of:
        0.021040944 = product of:
          0.04208189 = sum of:
            0.04208189 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04208189 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    6. 4.2008 19:04:22
  8. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.01
    0.010520472 = product of:
      0.021040944 = sum of:
        0.021040944 = product of:
          0.04208189 = sum of:
            0.04208189 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04208189 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
  9. Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008) 0.01
    0.00876706 = product of:
      0.01753412 = sum of:
        0.01753412 = product of:
          0.03506824 = sum of:
            0.03506824 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03506824 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 6.2008 12:54:12
  10. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.01
    0.0070136483 = product of:
      0.014027297 = sum of:
        0.014027297 = product of:
          0.028054593 = sum of:
            0.028054593 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.028054593 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, 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=5171)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35