Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Leydesdorff, L.; Salah, A.A.A.: Maps on the basis of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index : the journals Leonardo and Art Journal versus "digital humanities" as a topic (2010) 0.02
    0.024069263 = product of:
      0.12034631 = sum of:
        0.12034631 = weight(_text_:index in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12034631 = score(doc=3436,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.64773786 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    The possibilities of using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) for journal mapping have not been sufficiently recognized because of the absence of a Journal Citations Report (JCR) for this database. A quasi-JCR for the A&HCI ([2008]) was constructed from the data contained in the Web of Science and is used for the evaluation of two journals as examples: Leonardo and Art Journal. The maps on the basis of the aggregated journal-journal citations within this domain can be compared with maps including references to journals in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Art journals are cited by (social) science journals more than by other art journals, but these journals draw upon one another in terms of their own references. This cultural impact in terms of being cited is not found when documents with a topic such as digital humanities are analyzed. This community of practice functions more as an intellectual organizer than a journal.
    Object
    Arts and Humanities Citation Index
  2. Leydesdorff, L.; Opthof, T.: Citation analysis with medical subject Headings (MeSH) using the Web of Knowledge : a new routine (2013) 0.01
    0.0107641 = product of:
      0.0538205 = sum of:
        0.0538205 = weight(_text_:index in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0538205 = score(doc=943,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Citation analysis of documents retrieved from the Medline database (at the Web of Knowledge) has been possible only on a case-by-case basis. A technique is presented here for citation analysis in batch mode using both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) at the Web of Knowledge and the Science Citation Index at the Web of Science (WoS). This freeware routine is applied to the case of "Brugada Syndrome," a specific disease and field of research (since 1992). The journals containing these publications, for example, are attributed to WoS categories other than "cardiac and cardiovascular systems", perhaps because of the possibility of genetic testing for this syndrome in the clinic. With this routine, all the instruments available for citation analysis can now be used on the basis of MeSH terms. Other options for crossing between Medline, WoS, and Scopus are also reviewed.
  3. Ardanuy, J.: Sixty years of citation analysis studies in the humanities (1951-2010) (2013) 0.01
    0.0107641 = product of:
      0.0538205 = sum of:
        0.0538205 = weight(_text_:index in 1015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0538205 = score(doc=1015,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 1015, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1015)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    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.
  4. 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) 0.01
    0.008970084 = product of:
      0.044850416 = sum of:
        0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044850416 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    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.