Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.061314248 = sum of:
  0.029548995 = product of:
    0.11819598 = sum of:
      0.11819598 = weight(_text_:authors in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11819598 = score(doc=5130,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23704608 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05199731 = queryNorm
          0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.031765252 = product of:
    0.063530505 = sum of:
      0.063530505 = weight(_text_:l in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.063530505 = score(doc=5130,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20667124 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05199731 = queryNorm
          0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
    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

0.012663855 = product of:
  0.02532771 = sum of:
    0.02532771 = product of:
      0.10131084 = sum of:
        0.10131084 = weight(_text_:authors in 5120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10131084 = score(doc=5120,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23704608 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05199731 = queryNorm
            0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 5120, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5120)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There is an ongoing discussion on the influence of international collaboration on impact as measured by citation based indicators. Collaboration generally involves more authors than 'no collaboration' work and it is obvious that the phenomenon of self citation will be stronger (there are more authors to cite themselves). Thus it can be seen as an important 'amplifier' of measured impact. Asserts, however, that this effect should not be considered as the only or even major explanation of higher impact in the comparison between 'no collaboration' and international collaboration. Using data of an extensive bibliometric study of astronomical research in the Netherlands, proves that higher rates of self citation in international collaboration do not play any significant role as 'impact amplifier'. The central point is that proper impact measurement must involve corrections for self citations

0.011939597 = product of:
  0.023879195 = sum of:
    0.023879195 = product of:
      0.09551678 = sum of:
        0.09551678 = weight(_text_:authors in 3300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09551678 = score(doc=3300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23704608 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05199731 = queryNorm
            0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 3300, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3300)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.011939597 = product of:
  0.023879195 = sum of:
    0.023879195 = product of:
      0.09551678 = sum of:
        0.09551678 = weight(_text_:authors in 5020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09551678 = score(doc=5020,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23704608 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05199731 = queryNorm
            0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 5020, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5020)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Presents an extensive domain analysis of information science in terms of its authors. Names of those most frequently cited in 12 key journals from 1972 through 1995 were retrieved from Social SciSearch via Dialog. The top 120 were submitted to author co-citation analyzes, yielding automatic classifications relevant to histories of the field

0.010447147 = product of:
  0.020894295 = sum of:
    0.020894295 = product of:
      0.08357718 = sum of:
        0.08357718 = weight(_text_:authors in 198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08357718 = score(doc=198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23704608 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05199731 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 198, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=198)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a series of articles, Don Swanson explores the problem of associating two or more literatures that are logically, or substantively, related, but bibliographically noninteractive. He has called these implicit links among published literatures undicovered public knowledge. This article explores the fate of Swanson's ideas, using citation content analysis both to determine which authors have utilized Swanson's ideas and to examine the uses to which they have been put. The results suggest that while Swanson has received significant attention from the library and information science community, his ideas have not been widely cited in biomedical disciplines, and, when cited, only with rhetorically dismissive qualifications that detracts from their facticity. These results are interpreted as a failed instance of interdisciplinarity communication, and several explanations of this failure are discussed

0.008954698 = product of:
  0.017909396 = sum of:
    0.017909396 = product of:
      0.071637586 = sum of:
        0.071637586 = weight(_text_:authors in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071637586 = score(doc=1825,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23704608 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05199731 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to investigate the place and role of citation analysis in selected disciplines in the social sciences, including library and information science. 5 core library and information science periodicals: Journal of documentation; Library quarterly; Journal of the American Society for Information Science; College and research libraries; and the Journal of information science, were studed to determine the percentage of articles devoted to citation analysis and develop an indictive typology to categorize the major foci of research being conducted under the rubric of citation analysis. Similar analysis was conducted for periodicals in other social sciences disciplines. Demonstrates how the rubric can be used to dertermine how citatiion analysis is applied within library and information science and other disciplines. By isolating citation from bibliometrics in general, this work is differentiated from other, previous studies. Analysis of data from a 10 year sample of transdisciplinary social sciences literature suggests that 2 application areas predominate: the validity of citation as an evaluation tool; and impact or performance studies of authors, periodicals, and institutions

0.008954698 = product of:
  0.017909396 = sum of:
    0.017909396 = product of:
      0.071637586 = sum of:
        0.071637586 = weight(_text_:authors in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071637586 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23704608 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05199731 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  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