Search (25 results, page 1 of 2)

0.04639807 = product of:
  0.11599517 = sum of:
    0.07827286 = weight(_text_:line in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07827286 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25266227 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
    0.03772231 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03772231 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

We explore the intellectual subject structure and research themes in software engineering through the identification and analysis of a core journal literature. We examine this literature via two expert perspectives: that of the author, who identified significant work by citing it (journal cocitation analysis), and that of the professional indexer, who tags published work with subject terms to facilitate retrieval from a bibliographic database (subject profile analysis). The data sources are SCISEARCH (the on-line version of Science Citation Index), and INSPEC (a database covering software engineering, computer science, and information systems). We use data visualization tools (cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and PFNets) to show the "intellectual maps" of software engineering. Cocitation and subject profile analyses demonstrate that software engineering is a distinct interdisciplinary field, valuing practical and applied aspects, and spanning a subject continuum from "programming-in-the-smalI" to "programming-in-the-large." This continuum mirrors the software development life cycle by taking the operating system or major application from initial programming through project management, implementation, and maintenance. Object orientation is an integral but distinct subject area in software engineering. Key differences are the importance of management and programming: (1) cocitation analysis emphasizes project management and systems development; (2) programming techniques/languages are more influential in subject profiles; (3) cocitation profiles place object-oriented journals separately and centrally while the subject profile analysis locates these journals with the programming/languages group

0.021916403 = product of:
  0.10958201 = sum of:
    0.10958201 = weight(_text_:line in 1452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10958201 = score(doc=1452,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25266227 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.4337094 = fieldWeight in 1452, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1452)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.016954621 = product of:
  0.042386554 = sum of:
    0.030177847 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030177847 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.17204987 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.012208707 = product of:
      0.024417413 = sum of:
        0.024417413 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024417413 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.

Date

9. 7.2006 10:22:35

0.01568087 = product of:
  0.078404345 = sum of:
    0.078404345 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.078404345 = score(doc=1036,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 1036, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1036)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Historically, co-citation models have been based only on bibliographic information. Full-text analysis offers the opportunity to significantly improve the quality of the signals upon which these co-citation models are based. In this work we study the effect of reference proximity on the accuracy of co-citation clusters. Using a corpus of 270,521 full text documents from 2007, we compare the results of traditional co-citation clustering using only the bibliographic information to results from co-citation clustering where proximity between reference pairs is factored into the pairwise relationships. We find that accounting for reference proximity from full text can increase the textual coherence (a measure of accuracy) of a co-citation cluster solution by up to 30% over the traditional approach based on bibliographic information.

0.015088923 = product of:
  0.07544462 = sum of:
    0.07544462 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07544462 = score(doc=4542,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.43012467 = fieldWeight in 4542, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4542)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The reciprocal relationship between bibliographic references and citations in the context of the scholarly communication system is examined. Semiotic analysis of referencing behaviours and citation counting reveals the complexity of prevailing sign systems and associated symbolic practices.

0.012523659 = product of:
  0.06261829 = sum of:
    0.06261829 = weight(_text_:line in 4719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06261829 = score(doc=4719,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25266227 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.24783395 = fieldWeight in 4719, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4719)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.012071139 = product of:
  0.060355693 = sum of:
    0.060355693 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 7170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060355693 = score(doc=7170,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 7170, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7170)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.01066948 = product of:
  0.053347398 = sum of:
    0.053347398 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053347398 = score(doc=5176,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.009766965 = product of:
  0.048834827 = sum of:
    0.048834827 = product of:
      0.09766965 = sum of:
        0.09766965 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09766965 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.008632859 = product of:
  0.043164294 = sum of:
    0.043164294 = product of:
      0.08632859 = sum of:
        0.08632859 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08632859 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.008535584 = product of:
  0.04267792 = sum of:
    0.04267792 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04267792 = score(doc=3585,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.24331525 = fieldWeight in 3585, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3585)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Inhalt: Biblio/sciento/infor-metrics : terminological issues and early historical developments -- The empirical foundations of bibliometrics : the Science citation index -- The philosophical foundations of bibliometrics : Bernal, Merton, Price, Garfield, and Small -- The mathematical foundations of bibliometrics -- Maps and paradigms : bibliographic citations at the service of the history and sociology of science -- Impact factor and the evaluation of scientists : bibliographic citations at the service of science policy and management -- On the shoulders of dwarfs : citation as rhetorical device and the criticisms to the normative model -- Measuring scientific communication in the twentieth century : from bibliometrics to cybermetrics.

0.008465665 = product of:
  0.042328328 = sum of:
    0.042328328 = product of:
      0.084656656 = sum of:
        0.084656656 = weight(_text_:searching in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084656656 = score(doc=1080,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18226127 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = queryNorm
            0.46447968 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Author searching is traditionally based on the matching of name strings. Special characteristics of authors as personal names and subject indicators are not considered. This makes it difficult to identify a set of related authors or to group authors by subjects in retrieval systems. In this paper, we describe the design and implementation of a prototype visualization system to enhance author searching. The system, called AuthorLink, is based on author co-citation analysis and visualization mapping algorithms such as Kohonen's feature maps and Pathfinder networks. AuthorLink produces interactive author maps in real time from a database of 1.26 million records supplied by the Institute for Scientific Information. The maps show subject groupings and more fine-grained intellectual connections among authors. Through the interactive interface the user can take advantage of such information to refine queries and retrieve documents through point-and-click manipulation of the authors' names.

0.008064219 = product of:
  0.040321093 = sum of:
    0.040321093 = product of:
      0.080642186 = sum of:
        0.080642186 = weight(_text_:searching in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.080642186 = score(doc=1255,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18226127 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = queryNorm
            0.44245374 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Chemical Abstracts Service recently unveiled citation searching in Chemical Abstracts. With Chemical Abstracts and Science Citation Index both now available for citation searching, this study compares the duplication and uniqueness of citing references for works of chemistry researchers for the years 1999-2001. The two indexes cover very similar source material, so one would expect the citation results to be very similar. This analysis of SciFinder Scholar and Web of Science shows some important differences as the databases are currently offered. Authors and institutions using citation counts as measures of scientific productivity should take note.

0.0075444616 = product of:
  0.03772231 = sum of:
    0.03772231 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03772231 = score(doc=3880,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 3880, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3880)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The number and type of Web citations to journal articles in four areas of science are examined: biology, genetics, medicine, and multidisciplinary sciences. For a sample of 5,972 articles published in 114 journals, the median Web citation counts per journal article range from 6.2 in medicine to 10.4 in genetics. About 30% of Web citations in each area indicate intellectual impact (citations from articles or class readings, in contrast to citations from bibliographic services or the author's or journal's home page). Journals receiving more Web citations also have higher percentages of citations indicating intellectual impact. There is significant correlation between the number of citations reported in the databases from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now Thomson Scientific) and the number of citations retrieved using the Google search engine (Web citations). The correlation is much weaker for journals published outside the United Kingdom or United States and for multidisciplinary journals. Web citation numbers are higher than ISI citation counts, suggesting that Web searches might be conducted for an earlier or a more fine-grained assessment of an article's impact. The Web-evident impact of non-UK/USA publications might provide a balance to the geographic or cultural biases observed in ISI's data, although the stability of Web citation counts is debatable.

0.0075444616 = product of:
  0.03772231 = sum of:
    0.03772231 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03772231 = score(doc=3763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

References from publications are at the same time citations to other publications. This entry introduces some of the practical uses of citation data in science and scholarship. At the individual level citations identify and permit the retrieval of specific editions of works, while also suggesting their subject matter, authority, and age. Through citation indexes, retrievals may include not only the earlier items referred to by a given work, but also the later items that cite that given work in turn. Some technical notes on retrieval are included here. Counts of citations received over time, and measures derived from them, reveal the varying impacts of works, authors, journals, organizations, and countries. This has obvious implications for the evaluation of, e.g., library collections, academics, research teams, and science policies. When treated as linkages between pairs of publications, references and citations reveal intellectual ties. Several kinds of links have been defined, such as cocitation, bibliographic coupling, and intercitation. In the aggregate, these links form networks that compactly suggest the intellectual histories of research specialties and disciplines, especially when the networks are visualized through mapping software. Citation analysis is of course not without critics, who have long pointed out imperfections in the data or in analytical techniques. However, the criticisms have generally been met by strong counterarguments from proponents.

0.0069121867 = product of:
  0.034560934 = sum of:
    0.034560934 = product of:
      0.06912187 = sum of:
        0.06912187 = weight(_text_:searching in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06912187 = score(doc=4593,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18226127 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = queryNorm
            0.37924606 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A citation analysis examined the 28 best articles published in JASIS from 1969-1996. Best articles tend to single-authored works twice as long as the avergae article published in JASIS. They are cited and self-cited much more often than the average article. The greatest source of references made to the best articles is from JASIS itself. The top 5 best papers focus largely on information retrieval and online searching

Content

Top by numbers of citations: (1) Saracevic, T. et al.: A study of information seeking and retrieving I-III (1988); (2) Bates, M.: Information search tactics (1979); (3) Cooper, W.S.: On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness (1973); (4) Marcus, R.S.: A experimental comparison of the effectiveness of computers and humans as search intermediaries (1983); (4) Fidel, R.: Online searching styles (1984)

0.0060355696 = product of:
  0.030177847 = sum of:
    0.030177847 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030177847 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.17204987 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study explores the tendency of authors to recite themselves and others in multiple works over time, using the insights gained to build citation theory. The set of all authors whom an author cites is defined as that author's citation identity. The study explains how to retrieve citation identities from the Institute for Scientific Information's files on Dialog and how to deal with idiosyncrasies of these files. As the author's oeuvre grows, the identity takes the form of a core-and-scatter distribution that may be divided into authors cited only once (unicitations) and authors cited at least twice (recitations). The latter group, especially those recited most frequently, are interpretable as symbols of a citer's main substantive concerns. As illustrated by the top recitees of eight information scientists, identities are intelligible, individualized, and wide-ranging. They are ego-centered without being egotistical. They are often affected by social ties between citers and citees, but the universal motivator seems to be the perceived relevance of the citees' works. Citing styles in identities differ: "scientific-paper style" authors recite heavily, adding to core; "bibliographic-essay style" authors are heavy on unicitations, adding to scatter; "literature-review style" authors do both at once. Identities distill aspects of citers' intellectual lives, such as orienting figures, interdisciplinary interests, bidisciplinary careers, and conduct in controversies. They can also be related to past schemes for classifying citations in categories such as positive-negative and perfunctory- organic; indeed, one author's frequent recitation of another, whether positive or negative, may be the readiest indicator of an organic relation between them. The shape of the core-and-scatter distribution of names in identities can be explained by the principle of least effort. Citers economize on effort by frequently reciting only a relatively small core of names in their identities. They also economize by frequent use of perfunctory citations, which require relatively little context, and infrequent use of negative citations, which require contexts more laborious to set

0.0057022637 = product of:
  0.028511317 = sum of:
    0.028511317 = product of:
      0.057022635 = sum of:
        0.057022635 = weight(_text_:searching in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057022635 = score(doc=2809,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18226127 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = queryNorm
            0.31286204 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Provides a synoptic review and history of citation indexes and their evolution into research evaluation tools including a discussion of the use of bibliometric data for evaluating US institutions (academic departments) by the National Research Council (NRC). Covers the origin and uses of periodical impact factors, validation studies of citation analysis, information retrieval and dissemination (current awareness), citation consciousness, historiography and science mapping, Citation Classics, and the history of contemporary science. Illustrates the retrieval of information by cited reference searching, especially as it applies to avoiding duplicated research. Discusses the 15 year cumulative impacts of periodicals and the percentage of uncitedness, the emergence of scientometrics, old boy networks, and citation frequency distributions. Concludes with observations about the future of citation indexing

0.0057022637 = product of:
  0.028511317 = sum of:
    0.028511317 = product of:
      0.057022635 = sum of:
        0.057022635 = weight(_text_:searching in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057022635 = score(doc=3329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18226127 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = queryNorm
            0.31286204 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article studies citation practices in the arts and humanities from a theoretical and conceptual viewpoint, drawing on studies from fields like linguistics, history, library & information science, and the sociology of science. The use of references in the humanities is discussed in connection with the growing interest in the possibilities of applying citation analysis to humanistic disciplines. The study shows how the use of references within the humanities is connected to concepts of originality, to intellectual organization, and to searching and writing. Finally, it is acknowledged that the use of references is connected to stylistic, epistemological, and organizational differences, and these differences must be taken into account when applying citation analysis to humanistic disciplines.

0.005179716 = product of:
  0.02589858 = sum of:
    0.02589858 = product of:
      0.05179716 = sum of:
        0.05179716 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05179716 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35