Search (38 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[1990 TO 2000}
  1. Fujigaki, Y.: ¬The citation system : citation networks as repeatedly focusing on difference, continuous re-evaluation, and as persistent knowledge accumulation (1998) 0.00
    0.0029308924 = product of:
      0.005861785 = sum of:
        0.005861785 = product of:
          0.01172357 = sum of:
            0.01172357 = weight(_text_:a in 5129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01172357 = score(doc=5129,freq=14.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.26964417 = fieldWeight in 5129, product of:
                  3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                    14.0 = termFreq=14.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5129)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    States that it can be shown that claims of a lack of theories of citation are also indicative of a great need for a theory which links science dynamics and measurement. There is a wide gap between qualitative (science dynamics) and quantitative (measurement) approaches. To link them, proposes the use of the citation system, that potentially bridges a gap between measurement and epistemology, by applying system theory to the publication system
    Footnote
    Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'
    Type
    a
  2. Sen, B.K.; Pandalai, T.A.; Karanjai, A.: Ranking of scientists - a new approach (1998) 0.00
    0.0027134789 = product of:
      0.0054269577 = sum of:
        0.0054269577 = product of:
          0.0108539155 = sum of:
            0.0108539155 = weight(_text_:a in 5113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0108539155 = score(doc=5113,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.24964198 = fieldWeight in 5113, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5113)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    A formula for the ranking of scientists based on diachronous citation counts is proposed. The paper generalises the fact that the citation generation potential (CGP) is not the same for all papers, it differs from paper to paper, and also to a certain extent depends on the subject domain of the papers. The method of ranking proposed in no way replaces peer review. It merely acts as an aid for peers to help them arrive at a better judgement.
    Type
    a
  3. Kostoff, R.N.: ¬The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation (1998) 0.00
    0.002477056 = product of:
      0.004954112 = sum of:
        0.004954112 = product of:
          0.009908224 = sum of:
            0.009908224 = weight(_text_:a in 4129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009908224 = score(doc=4129,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 4129, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4129)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Leydesdorff, in his 1998 paper 'Theories of citation?', addresses the history of citations and citation analysis, and the transformation of a reference mechanism into a purportedly quantitative measure of research impact/quality. Examines different facets of citations and citation analysis, and discusses the validity of citation analysis as a useful measure of research impact/quality
    Footnote
    Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'
    Type
    a
  4. Magri, M.; Solari, A.: ¬The SCI Journal Citation Reports : a potential tool for studying journals? (1996) 0.00
    0.002374294 = product of:
      0.004748588 = sum of:
        0.004748588 = product of:
          0.009497176 = sum of:
            0.009497176 = weight(_text_:a in 5076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009497176 = score(doc=5076,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 5076, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5076)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Analyses 6 indicators of the Science Citation Index Journals Citation Reports over a 19 year period: number of total citations, number of citations to the previous 2 years, number of source items, impact factor, immediacy index and cited half life. Proposes a box plot method to aggregate the values of each indicator so as to obtain at a glance portrayals of the JCR population from 1974 to 1993. This 'rereading' of the JCR, which presents the JCR product differently, makes it possible to shed new light on the large sub population of journals not at the top of the rankings
    Type
    a
  5. Alvarez, P.; Pulgarin, A.: ¬The Rasch model : measuring the impact of scientific journals: analytical chemistry (1996) 0.00
    0.0022155463 = product of:
      0.0044310926 = sum of:
        0.0044310926 = product of:
          0.008862185 = sum of:
            0.008862185 = weight(_text_:a in 8505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008862185 = score(doc=8505,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 8505, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8505)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Focuses on a way to determine a ranking of science journals according to the number of citations-to and items-published data used by Science Citation Insitute of Citation Reports of the Institute for Science Information to determine journal ranking by impact factor. Applies latent traits theory to bibliometrics
    Type
    a
  6. Kostoff, R.N.: Citation analysis cross field normalization : a new paradigm (1997) 0.00
    0.0022155463 = product of:
      0.0044310926 = sum of:
        0.0044310926 = product of:
          0.008862185 = sum of:
            0.008862185 = weight(_text_:a in 464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008862185 = score(doc=464,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 464, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=464)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Proposes a new paradigm for comparing quality of published papers across different disciplines. This method uses a figure of merit of the ratio of actual citations received to the potential maximum number of citations that could have been received. It is analogous to approaches used to compare performance in physical systems, and appears intrinsically more useful than present approaches
    Type
    a
  7. Cronin, B.: Metatheorizing citation (1998) 0.00
    0.0022155463 = product of:
      0.0044310926 = sum of:
        0.0044310926 = product of:
          0.008862185 = sum of:
            0.008862185 = weight(_text_:a in 5127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008862185 = score(doc=5127,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 5127, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5127)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Reviews a variety of perspectives on citation. Argues that citations have multiple articulations in that they inform our understanding of the sociocultural, cognitive, and textual aspects of scientific communication. Proposes 2 metatheoretical frameworks as a means of negotiating the interpretative differences which characterize the various discourse communities concerned with citation theory and practice
    Footnote
    Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'
    Type
    a
  8. Moed, H.F.; Bruin, R.E.D.; Leeuwen, T.N.V.: New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance : database description, overview of indicators and first applications (1995) 0.00
    0.0021981692 = product of:
      0.0043963385 = sum of:
        0.0043963385 = product of:
          0.008792677 = sum of:
            0.008792677 = weight(_text_:a in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008792677 = score(doc=3376,freq=14.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
                  3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                    14.0 = termFreq=14.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Gives an outline of a new bibliometric database based upon all articles published by authors from the Netherlands and processed during 1980-1993 by ISI for the SCI, SSCI and AHCI. Describes various types of information added to the database: data on articles citing the Dutch publications; detailed citation data on ISI journals and subfields; and a classification system of the main publishing organizations. Also gives an overview of the types of bibliometric indicators constructed. and discusses their relationship to indicators developed by other researchers in the field. Gives 2 applications to illustrate the potentials of the database and of the bibliometric indicators derived from it: one that represents a synthesis of 'classical' macro indicator studies on the one hand and bibliometric analyses of research groups on the other; and a second that gives for the first time a detailed analysis of a country's publications per institutional sector
    Type
    a
  9. Száva-Kováts, E.: Indirect-collective referencing (ICR) : life course, nature, and importance of a special kind of science referencing (1999) 0.00
    0.0021981692 = product of:
      0.0043963385 = sum of:
        0.0043963385 = product of:
          0.008792677 = sum of:
            0.008792677 = weight(_text_:a in 4298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008792677 = score(doc=4298,freq=14.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 4298, product of:
                  3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                    14.0 = termFreq=14.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4298)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Indirect collective referencing (ICR) is a special kind of indirect referencing, in an act making reference to all references cited in a directly cited paper. In this research the literature phenomenon of ICR is defined in the narrowest sense, taking into account only its indisputable minimum. To reveal the life course of this phenomenon, a longitudinal section was taken in the representative elite general physics journal, The Physical Review, processing more than 4.200 journal papers from 1897 to 1997 and their close to 84.00 formal references. This investigation showed that the ICR phenomenon has existed in the journal for a century now; that the frequency and intensity of the phenomenon have been constantly increasing in both absolute and relative terms since the last, mature period of the Little Science age; and that this growth has accelerated in the publication explosion of the Big Science age. It was shown that the Citation Indexes show only a fraction of the really cited references in the journal
    Type
    a
  10. Cronin, B.; Weaver-Wozniak, S.: Online access to acknowledgements (1993) 0.00
    0.0021674242 = product of:
      0.0043348484 = sum of:
        0.0043348484 = product of:
          0.008669697 = sum of:
            0.008669697 = weight(_text_:a in 7827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008669697 = score(doc=7827,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 7827, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7827)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Reviews the scale, range and consistency of acknowledgement behaviour, in citations, for a number of academic disciplines. The qualitative and quantitative evidence suggests a pervasive and consistent practice in which acknowledgements define a variety of social, cognitive and instrumental relationships between scholars and within and across disciplines. As such they may be used alongside other bibliometric indicators, such as citations, to map networks of influence. Considers the case for using acknowledgements data in the assessment of academic performance and proposes an online acknowledgement index to facilitate this process, perhaps as a logical extension of ISI's citation indexing products
    Type
    a
  11. Scharnhorst, A.: Citation - networks, science landscapes and evolutionary strategies (1998) 0.00
    0.0021674242 = product of:
      0.0043348484 = sum of:
        0.0043348484 = product of:
          0.008669697 = sum of:
            0.008669697 = weight(_text_:a in 5126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008669697 = score(doc=5126,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 5126, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5126)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The construction of virtual science landscapes based on citation networks and the strategic use of the information therein shed new light on the issues of the evolution of the science system and possibilities for control. Leydesdorff's approach to citation theory described in his 1998 article (see this issue of LISA) takes into account the dual layered character of communication networks and the second order nature of the science system. This perspective may help to sharpen the awareness of scientists and science policy makers for possible feedback loops within actions and activities in the science system, and probably nonlinear phenomena resulting therefrom. Sketches an additional link to geometrically oriented evolutionary theories and uses a specific landscape concept as a framework for some comments
    Footnote
    Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?
    Type
    a
  12. Moed, H.F.; Leeuwen, T.N. van; Reedijk, J.: ¬A new classification system to describe the ageing of scientific journals and their impact factors (1998) 0.00
    0.0019970664 = product of:
      0.003994133 = sum of:
        0.003994133 = product of:
          0.007988266 = sum of:
            0.007988266 = weight(_text_:a in 4719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007988266 = score(doc=4719,freq=26.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.18373153 = fieldWeight in 4719, product of:
                  5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                    26.0 = termFreq=26.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4719)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    During the past decades, journal impact data obtained from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) have gained relevance in library management, research management and research evaluation. Hence, both information scientists and bibliometricians share the responsibility towards the users of the JCR to analyse the reliability and validity of its measures thoroughly, to indicate pitfalls and to suggest possible improvements. In this article, ageing patterns are examined in 'formal' use or impact of all scientific journals processed for the Science Citation Index (SCI) during 1981-1995. A new classification system of journals in terms of their ageing characteristics is introduced. This system has been applied to as many as 3,098 journals covered by the Science Citation Index. Following an earlier suggestion by Glnzel and Schoepflin, a maturing and a decline phase are distinguished. From an analysis across all subfields it has been concluded that ageing characteristics are primarily specific to the individual journal rather than to the subfield, while the distribution of journals in terms of slowly or rapidly maturing or declining types is specific to the subfield. It is shown that the cited half life (CHL), printed in the JCR, is an inappropriate measure of decline of journal impact. Following earlier work by Line and others, a more adequate parameter of decline is calculated taking into account the size of annual volumes during a range of fifteen years. For 76 per cent of SCI journals the relative difference between this new parameter and the ISI CHL exceeds 5 per cent. The current JCR journal impact factor is proven to be biased towards journals revealing a rapid maturing and decline in impact. Therefore, a longer term impact factor is proposed, as well as a normalised impact statistic, taking into account citation characteristics of the research subfield covered by a journal and the type of documents published in it. When these new measures are combined with the proposed ageing classification system, they provide a significantly improved picture of a journal's impact to that obtained from the JCR.
    Type
    a
  13. Vinkler, P.: Relationships between the rate of scientific development and citations : the chance for citedness model (1996) 0.00
    0.0019582848 = product of:
      0.0039165695 = sum of:
        0.0039165695 = product of:
          0.007833139 = sum of:
            0.007833139 = weight(_text_:a in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007833139 = score(doc=5077,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5077, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5077)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Chances for information to be cited (CC) depend on disciplines and topics because of different publication and referencing practices. However, the developmental rate of knowledge strongly influences CC as well. By a simple model concludes that CC are the greater the faster the publication rate
    Type
    a
  14. Shapiro, F.R.: Origins of bibliometrics, citation indexing and citation analysis : the neglected legal literature (1992) 0.00
    0.001938603 = product of:
      0.003877206 = sum of:
        0.003877206 = product of:
          0.007754412 = sum of:
            0.007754412 = weight(_text_:a in 4262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007754412 = score(doc=4262,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4262, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4262)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  15. Leydesdorff, L.: Theories of citation? (1999) 0.00
    0.001938603 = product of:
      0.003877206 = sum of:
        0.003877206 = product of:
          0.007754412 = sum of:
            0.007754412 = weight(_text_:a in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007754412 = score(doc=5130,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Citations support the communication of specialist knowledge by allowing authors and readers to make specific selections in several contexts at the same time. In the interactions between the social network of authors and the network of their reflexive communications, a sub textual code of communication with a distributed character has emerged. Citation analysis reflects on citation practices. Reference lists are aggregated in scientometric analysis using one of the available contexts to reduce the complexity: geometrical representations of dynamic operations are reflected in corresponding theories of citation. The specific contexts represented in the modern citation can be deconstructed from the perspective of the cultural evolution of scientific communication
    Footnote
    Lead paper in a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'
    Type
    a
  16. Persson, O.; Beckmann, M.: Locating the network of interacting authors in scientific specialities (1995) 0.00
    0.0019187195 = product of:
      0.003837439 = sum of:
        0.003837439 = product of:
          0.007674878 = sum of:
            0.007674878 = weight(_text_:a in 3300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007674878 = score(doc=3300,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 3300, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3300)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Seeks to describe the social networks, or invisible colleges, that make up a scientific speciality, in terms of mathematically precise sets generated by document citations and accessible through the Social Science Citation Index. The document and author sets that encompass a scientific specialty are the basis for some interdependent citation matrices. The method of construction of these sets and matrices is illustrated through an application to the literature on invisible colleges
    Type
    a
  17. Osareh, F.: Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis : a review of literature II (1996) 0.00
    0.0019187195 = product of:
      0.003837439 = sum of:
        0.003837439 = product of:
          0.007674878 = sum of:
            0.007674878 = weight(_text_:a in 7105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007674878 = score(doc=7105,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 7105, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7105)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Part 2 of a 2 part article reviewing the technique of bibliometrics and one of its most widely used methods, citation analysis. Reports on studies of author co-citation, periodical by periodical citation analysis and country by country citation analysis in addition to the mapping of science as an application of citation analysis. Considers the limitations, problems and reliability of citation analysis
    Type
    a
  18. Osareh, F.: Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis : a review of literature I (1996) 0.00
    0.0019187195 = product of:
      0.003837439 = sum of:
        0.003837439 = product of:
          0.007674878 = sum of:
            0.007674878 = weight(_text_:a in 7170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007674878 = score(doc=7170,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 7170, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7170)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Part 1 of a 2 part article reviewing the technique of bibliometrics and one of its most widely used methods, citation analysis. Traces the history and development of bibliometrics, including its definition, scope, role in scholarly communication and applications. Treats citation analysis similarly with particular reference to bibliographic coupling and cocitation coupling
    Type
    a
  19. Szava-Kovats, E.: Non-indexed literature citedness (1997) 0.00
    0.0019187195 = product of:
      0.003837439 = sum of:
        0.003837439 = product of:
          0.007674878 = sum of:
            0.007674878 = weight(_text_:a in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007674878 = score(doc=3002,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 3002, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3002)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Discusses citation counting measurements, and provides a qualitative analysis of citation analysis (also known as scientometrics or informetrics). Critically evaluates citation indexes, drawing on 2 major investigations carried out by the author. Explains the importance of the phenomenon of non-indexed citedness, and highlights some serious limitations of citation indexes as a basis for measuring the scientific literature and hence making judgements about the respective merits of individual scientists
    Type
    a
  20. Garfield, E.: Random thoughts on citationology : Its theory and practice (1998) 0.00
    0.0019187195 = product of:
      0.003837439 = sum of:
        0.003837439 = product of:
          0.007674878 = sum of:
            0.007674878 = weight(_text_:a in 5128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007674878 = score(doc=5128,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037706986 = queryNorm
                0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 5128, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5128)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Theories of citation are as elusive as theories of information science, which have been debated for decade. Gives an overview of some of these theories, and as a basis for discussion offers the term citationology as the theory and practice of citation, including its derivative disciplines citation analysis and bibliometrics
    Footnote
    Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'
    Type
    a