Search (39 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.05 
    0.04646882 = product of:
  0.116172045 = sum of:
    0.072278604 = weight(_text_:j in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072278604 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.5617073 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
    0.04389344 = product of:
      0.08778688 = sum of:
        0.08778688 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08778688 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049623 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  2. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.04 
    0.037983995 = product of:
  0.09495999 = sum of:
    0.0561633 = weight(_text_:b in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0561633 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.3914457 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
    0.038796686 = product of:
      0.07759337 = sum of:
        0.07759337 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07759337 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049623 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  3. Pudovkin, A.I.; Garfield, E.: Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals (2002) 0.03 
    0.031534158 = product of:
  0.07883539 = sum of:
    0.03912194 = weight(_text_:j in 5220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03912194 = score(doc=5220,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.304033 = fieldWeight in 5220, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5220)
    0.03971345 = weight(_text_:b in 5220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03971345 = score(doc=5220,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.2767939 = fieldWeight in 5220, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5220)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Journal Citation Reports provides a classification of journals most heavily cited by a given journal and which most heavily cite that journal, but size variation is not taken into account. Pudovkin and Garfield suggest a procedure for meeting this difficulty. The relatedness of journal i to journal j is determined by the number of citations from journal i to journal j in a given year normalized by the product of the papers published in the j journal in that year times the number of references cited in the i journal in that year. A multiplier of ten to the sixth is suggested to bring the values into an easily perceptible range. While citations received depend upon the overall cumulative number of papers published by a journal, the current year is utilized since that data is available in JCR. Citations to current year papers would be quite low in most fields and thus not included. To produce the final index, the maximum of the A citing B value, and the B citing A value is chosen and used to indicate the closeness of the journals. The procedure is illustrated for the journal Genetics.
  4. Gorraiz, J.: "Web of Science" versus "Scopus" oder das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliotheken (2006) 0.02 
    0.02432098 = product of:
  0.060802452 = sum of:
    0.027104476 = weight(_text_:j in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027104476 = score(doc=5021,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 5021, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5021)
    0.033697978 = weight(_text_:b in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033697978 = score(doc=5021,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5021, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5021)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Bei den nachfolgenden Ausführungen handelt es sich um eine Zusammenstellung von Kommentaren, Vorträgen und Rückmeldungen von Kollegen bzw. Benutzern der Bibliothek sowie meine eigenen Erfahrungen als Vortragender im Universitätslehrgang "Master of Science", in dessen Rahmen ich das Fach "Bibliometrie" unterrichte. Schwerpunkt dieses Beitrages ist eine Zusammenfassung der Diskussion "Web of Science versus Scopus", die den aktuellen Stand der Kontroverse (vor allem an der Universität Wien im naturwissenschaftlichen Sektor) widerspiegelt. Hier ist zu bemerken, dass diese Problematik auch fachspezifisch ist und deswegen an jeder Universität bzw. in jedem Fachgebiet anders zu betrachten ist. Startpunkt meiner Betrachtung ist die allgemein akzeptierte Notwendigkeit des "Journal of Citation Reports (JCR)". Nur in diesem bibliometrischen Verzeichnis sind derzeit die "Impact Factors" zu finden, die als Grundlage jeder akademischen Evaluation dienen. Deswegen ist JCR heutzutage an jeder Universität mit naturwissenschaftlichen Fächern unentbehrlich und das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliothekare lautet nicht wirklich "Web of Science versus Scopus", sondern genaugesagt "Fallbeispiel A: Web of Science &JCR" oder "Fallbeispiel B: Scopus &JCR".
  5. Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006) 0.02 
    0.023407076 = product of:
  0.058517687 = sum of:
    0.039314307 = weight(_text_:b in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039314307 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
    0.01920338 = product of:
      0.03840676 = sum of:
        0.03840676 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03840676 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049623 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:20:01
  6. Gabel, J.: Improving information retrieval of subjects through citation-analysis : a study (2006) 0.02 
    0.018629381 = product of:
  0.046573453 = sum of:
    0.022587063 = weight(_text_:j in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022587063 = score(doc=225,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
    0.023986388 = weight(_text_:u in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023986388 = score(doc=225,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13260265 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
  7. Umstätter, W.: Szientometrische Verfahren (2004) 0.02 
    0.017897382 = product of:
  0.044743456 = sum of:
    0.025554344 = weight(_text_:j in 2920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025554344 = score(doc=2920,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.19859353 = fieldWeight in 2920, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2920)
    0.01918911 = weight(_text_:u in 2920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01918911 = score(doc=2920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13260265 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.14471136 = fieldWeight in 2920, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2920)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Die Szientometrie beschäftigt sich mit der Messbarkeit wissenschaftlicher Leistungen anhand bibliothekarisch nachweisbarer Publikationsergebnisse. Bei genauer Betrachtung ist es ihr Ziel, die Wissenszunahme der Wissenschaft zu messen. Die wissenschaftliche Produktion in Form von Publikationen wächst seit über dreihundert Jahren konstant mit ca. 3,5% pro Jahr. Das entspricht einerVerdopplungsrate von 20 Jahren, die zuerst dem Bibliothekar Fremont Rider 1948 bei Büchern auffiel und die 1963 von Derek J. de Solla Price auch für das Wachstum von Zeitschriften und Bibliografien bestätigt wurde. Die Konstanz dieser Evolution, unabhängig aller sich ereignenden Katastrophen, ist nur zum Teil verstanden, macht aber den unaufhaltsamen Fortschritt der Wissenschaft deutlich. Alle 20 Jahre wird so viel publiziert wie in allen Jahrhunderten davor. Eine etwa gleiche Zunahme verzeichnen die Wissenschaftler, die damit etwa gleich produktiv bleiben. Von ihnen allen sind damit ca. 87% unsere heutigen Zeitgenossen. Aus diesem Wachstum heraus können wir abschätzen, dass in 100.000 laufenden Zeitschriften heute etwa 10 Mio. Publikationen jährlich erscheinen, die von 10 Mio. Wissenschaftlern verfasst werden. Dabei definieren sich nur die als Wissenschaftler, die durchschnittlich eine Publikation jährlich verfassen. Die gesamte Produktion an Buchtiteln, die bisher erschien, dürfte bei etwa 100 Mio. liegen. Davon sind etwa 20 Mio. als wissenschaftlich einzustufen. Wenn folglich 87% aller Wissenschaftler noch heute leben, so betrug die Gesamtzahl der Wissenschaftler in der Welt bisher 11,5 Mio., die in ihrem Leben durchschnittlich 1,5 Bücher pro Kopf verfassten, und etwa das 10-20fache an Zeitschriftenbeiträgen leisteten. Ein Teil dieser Bücher sind allerdings Neuauflagen und Übersetzungen. Nach Lotka, A. J. ist die Produktivität der Wissenschaftler eine schiefe Verteilung von der Form A/n**2, wobei A die Zahl der Autoren mit nur einer Publikation ist und n die Publikationen pro Autor. Während Price in seinen "Networks of Scientific Papers" Vergleichswerte von n**2,5 bis n**3 angab, zeigten Untersuchungen am Science Citation Index (SCI), die auf die gesamte naturwissenschaftliche Literatur hochgerechnet wurden, eher einen Wert von n**1,7. Auf die Tatsache, dass eine Verdopplungsrate der Wissenschaftler von 20 Jahren und eine solche der Menschheit von etwa 50 Jahren dazu führt, dass eines Tages alle Menschen Wissenschaftler werden, hat Price bereits 1963 hingewiesen. Dieser Zustand müsste bei 10 Mio. Wissenschaftlern und 6 Mrd. Menschen in etwa 300 Jahren eintreten, ein nur scheinbar absurder Gedanke, wenn man bedenkt, dass man sich vor 300 Jahren auch kaum vorstellen konnte, dass alle Menschen Lesen, Schreiben und Rechnen lernen können, und dass wir uns ungebildete Menschen immer weniger leisten können.
    Source
    Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. 5., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. 2 Bde. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, Th. Seeger u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried. Bd.1: Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis
  8. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.02 
    0.017425805 = product of:
  0.043564513 = sum of:
    0.027104476 = weight(_text_:j in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027104476 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.016460039 = product of:
      0.032920077 = sum of:
        0.032920077 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032920077 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049623 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
  9. Ma, N.; Guan, J.; Zhao, Y.: Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis (2008) 0.02 
    0.017425805 = product of:
  0.043564513 = sum of:
    0.027104476 = weight(_text_:j in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027104476 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 2064, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2064)
    0.016460039 = product of:
      0.032920077 = sum of:
        0.032920077 = weight(_text_:22 in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032920077 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049623 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2064, 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=2064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    31. 7.2008 14:22:05
  10. Cronin, B.: Bibliometrics and beyond : some thoughts on web-based citation analysis (2001) 0.02 
    0.015725723 = product of:
  0.078628615 = sum of:
    0.078628615 = weight(_text_:b in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.078628615 = score(doc=3890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.54802394 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  11. Larsen, B.: Exploiting citation overlaps for information retrieval : generating a boomerang effect from the network of scientific papers (2002) 0.01 
    0.013479191 = product of:
  0.067395955 = sum of:
    0.067395955 = weight(_text_:b in 4175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067395955 = score(doc=4175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.46973482 = fieldWeight in 4175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4175)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  12. Wildner, B.: Web of Science - Scopus : Auf der Suche nach Zitierungen (2006) 0.01 
    0.013375471 = product of:
  0.03343868 = sum of:
    0.022465318 = weight(_text_:b in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022465318 = score(doc=5034,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 5034, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5034)
    0.01097336 = product of:
      0.02194672 = sum of:
        0.02194672 = weight(_text_:22 in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02194672 = score(doc=5034,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049623 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5034, 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=5034)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    4. 6.2006 17:22:15
  13. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.01 
    0.013375471 = product of:
  0.03343868 = sum of:
    0.022465318 = weight(_text_:b in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022465318 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.01097336 = product of:
      0.02194672 = sum of:
        0.02194672 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02194672 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049623 = 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)
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35
  14. Nicolaisen, J.: ¬The J-shaped distribution of citedness (2002) 0.01 
    0.0125190215 = product of:
  0.06259511 = sum of:
    0.06259511 = weight(_text_:j in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06259511 = score(doc=3765,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.48645282 = fieldWeight in 3765, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3765)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    A new approach for investigating the correlation between research quality and citation counts is presented and applied to a case study of the relationship between peer evaluations reflected in scholarly book reviews and the citation frequencies of reviewed books. Results of the study designate a J-shaped distribution between the considered variables, presumably caused by a skewed allocation of negative citations. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research.
  15. Cronin, B.: Semiotics and evaluative bibliometrics (2000) 0.01 
    0.01123266 = product of:
  0.0561633 = sum of:
    0.0561633 = weight(_text_:b in 4542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0561633 = score(doc=4542,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.3914457 = fieldWeight in 4542, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4542)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  16. Cronin, B.; Shaw, D.: Banking (on) different forms of symbolic capital (2002) 0.01 
    0.008986128 = product of:
  0.044930637 = sum of:
    0.044930637 = weight(_text_:b in 1263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044930637 = score(doc=1263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 1263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1263)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  17. Zhao, D.; Strotmann, A.: Can citation analysis of Web publications better detect research fronts? (2007) 0.01 
    0.0079426905 = product of:
  0.03971345 = sum of:
    0.03971345 = weight(_text_:b in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03971345 = score(doc=471,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.2767939 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    We present evidence that in some research fields, research published in journals and reported on the Web may collectively represent different evolutionary stages of the field, with journals lagging a few years behind the Web on average, and that a "two-tier" scholarly communication system may therefore be evolving. We conclude that in such fields, (a) for detecting current research fronts, author co-citation analyses (ACA) using articles published on the Web as a data source can outperform traditional ACAs using articles published in journals as data, and that (b) as a result, it is important to use multiple data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication for a complete picture of communication patterns. Our evidence stems from comparing the respective intellectual structures of the XML research field, a subfield of computer science, as revealed from three sets of ACA covering two time periods: (a) from the field's beginnings in 1996 to 2001, and (b) from 2001 to 2006. For the first time period, we analyze research articles both from journals as indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) and from the Web as indexed by CiteSeer. We follow up by an ACA of SCI data for the second time period. We find that most trends in the evolution of this field from the first to the second time period that we find when comparing ACA results from the SCI between the two time periods already were apparent in the ACA results from CiteSeer during the first time period.
  18. Morris, S.A.; Yen, G.; Wu, Z.; Asnake, B.: Time line visualization of research fronts (2003) 0.01 
    0.007862861 = product of:
  0.039314307 = sum of:
    0.039314307 = weight(_text_:b in 1452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039314307 = score(doc=1452,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 1452, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1452)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  19. Meho, L.I.; Sonnenwald, D.H.: Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance : a case study of Kurdish scholarship (2000) 0.01 
    0.0067395954 = product of:
  0.033697978 = sum of:
    0.033697978 = weight(_text_:b in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033697978 = score(doc=4382,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between citation ranking and peer evaluation in assessing senior faculty research performance. Other studies typically derive their peer evaluation data directly from referees, often in the form of ranking. This study uses two additional sources of peer evaluation data: citation contant analysis and book review content analysis. 2 main questions are investigated: (a) To what degree does citation ranking correlate with data from citation content analysis, book reviews and peer ranking? (b) Is citation ranking a valif evaluative indicator of research performance of senior faculty members? This study shows that citation ranking can provide a valid indicator for comparative evaluation of senior faculty research performance
  20. Chen, C.; Paul, R.J.; O'Keefe, B.: Fitting the Jigsaw of citation : information visualization in domain analysis (2001) 0.01 
    0.0067395954 = product of:
  0.033697978 = sum of:
    0.033697978 = weight(_text_:b in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033697978 = score(doc=5766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Authors

Languages

  • e 30
  • d 9

Themes