Search (213 results, page 2 of 11)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Schlaffer, H.: Selbstzitat (1997) 0.01 
    0.010872297 = product of:
  0.03261689 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 7464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=7464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 7464, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7464)
    0.02369266 = weight(_text_:und in 7464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02369266 = score(doc=7464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 7464, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7464)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    'Zwischenruf' zur Zitierpraxis im Wissenschaftsbereich: "Jeder kann seine Plazierung auf dieser Weltrangliste gelehrter Eitelkeit verbessern, indem er sich so oft und andere so wenig wie möglich zitiert. Die Verbreitung des Ruhms, den man braucht, nimmt man am besten selbst in die Hand, von Jugend an"
  2. Göbel, S.: What the Citation Index is good for (1997) 0.01 
    0.010872297 = product of:
  0.03261689 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 376, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=376)
    0.02369266 = weight(_text_:und in 376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02369266 = score(doc=376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 376, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=376)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Footnote
    Ein Leserbrief zu Sinn und Nutzen des Science Citation Index als Erwiderung auf einen Beitrag von A. Octavio in Mathematical intelligencer 18(1996) no.4, S.9-11
  3. Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998) 0.01 
    0.010636792 = product of:
  0.031910375 = sum of:
    0.014166778 = weight(_text_:in in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014166778 = score(doc=3692,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
    0.017743597 = product of:
      0.035487194 = sum of:
        0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035487194 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a study to examine the patterns of self citation in 6 disciplines distributed among the physical and social sciences and humanities. Sample articles were examined to deermine the relative numbers and ages of self citations and citations to other in the bibliographies and to the exposure given to each type of citation in the text of the articles. significant differences were found in the number and age of citations between disciplines. Overall, 9% of all citations were self citations; 15% of physical sciences citations were self citations, as opposed to 6% in the social sciences and 3% in the humanities. Within disciplines, there was no significantly different amount of coverage between self citations and citations to others. Overall, it appears that a lack of substantive differences in self citation behaviour is consistent across disciplines
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:33:24
  4. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.01 
    0.010636792 = product of:
  0.031910375 = sum of:
    0.014166778 = weight(_text_:in in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014166778 = score(doc=201,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
    0.017743597 = product of:
      0.035487194 = sum of:
        0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035487194 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
  5. Czepel, R.: ¬Die Geographie der wissenschaftlichen Zitierung (2003) 0.01 
    0.010429325 = product of:
  0.031287972 = sum of:
    0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010096614 = score(doc=2273,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
    0.021191359 = weight(_text_:und in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021191359 = score(doc=2273,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.219024 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Ein britischer Forscher hat sich die Mühe gemacht, die geografischen Muster der Zitierungen von 1981 bis zur Gegenwart freizulegen. Das Ergebnis: Die publizistische Wahrnehmung ist in der Wissenschaft äußerst ungleich verteilt. Die USA dominieren mit großem Abstand vor dem Rest der WeIt. Und auch dort konzentrieren sich die Verweise auf einige wenige Ballungsräume der Forschung. Michael Batty vom Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis in London bediente sich für seine Analyse der Datenbank "ISIHighlyCited.com" (http: //www.isihighlycited.com/), in der Forscher aus verschiedenen Disziplinen aufgelistet werden, die die weltweit meisten Zitate auf sich gezogen haben. In diesen Ranglisten nehmen die akademischen Edelschmieden aus den USA etwa jene Rolle ein, die Österreichische Athleten im Alpinschisport besetzen. Einzig der Forschungsraum London kann mit der Konkurrenz aus Übersee halbwegs mithalten. Der Artikel "Citation Geography: It's About Location" von Michael Batty erschien im Magazin "The Scientist" (Band 17, Heft 16/10, Ausgabe vom 25.8.03; http://www.thescientist.com/yr2003/aug/opinion 030825.html). Die Zeitschrift ist nach individueller Registrierung frei zugänglich. Der Homepage des Autors http: //www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/citations/ können weitere Details entnommen werden. Ob die Anzahl derZitate auch etwas über die wissenschaftliche Qualität aussagt, ist genau so Gegenstand von Diskussionen, wie dies etwa bei den "Impact-Faktoren" von Journalen der Fall ist (vgl. "Kann wissenschaftliche Qualität gemessen werden?", http://science.orf.at/science/news/58648). Ganz wertfrei kann man die ISI-Daten jedenfalls dazu verwenden, um herauszufinden, in welchem Land, in welcher Stadt und in welcher Institution die meist zitierten Forscher dieses Erdballs sitzen. Das Ergebnis dieser von Michael Batty erstellten "Geografie derwissenschaftlichen Zitierung" ist eindeutig: Einige Wenige ziehen den Großteil der publizistischen Aufmerksamkeit auf sich - und lassen für den Rest nur wenig über. Diese Aussage gilt gleichermaßen für Ranglisten von Städten, Institutionen und Ländern. Und: In allen drei Fällen kommen die Spitzereiter aus dem US-amerikanischen Raum.
  6. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.01 
    0.010286495 = product of:
  0.030859483 = sum of:
    0.013115887 = weight(_text_:in in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013115887 = score(doc=994,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.017743597 = product of:
      0.035487194 = sum of:
        0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035487194 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Citation rates are becoming increasingly important in judging the research quality of journals, institutions and departments, and individual faculty. This paper looks at the pattern of citations across different management science journals and over time. A stochastic model is proposed which views the generating mechanism of citations as a gamma mixture of Poisson processes generating overall a negative binomial distribution. This is tested empirically with a large sample of papers published in 1990 from six management science journals and found to fit well. The model is extended to include obsolescence, i.e., that the citation rate for a paper varies over its cited lifetime. This leads to the additional citations distribution which shows that future citations are a linear function of past citations with a time-dependent and decreasing slope. This is also verified empirically in a way that allows different obsolescence functions to be fitted to the data. Conclusions concerning the predictability of future citations, and future research in this area are discussed.
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem "Special Issue on Informetrics"
  7. Klein, A.: Von der Schneeflocke zur Lawine : Möglichkeiten der Nutzung freier Zitationsdaten in Bibliotheken (2017) 0.01 
    0.010184498 = product of:
  0.030553492 = sum of:
    0.013968632 = weight(_text_:in in 4002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013968632 = score(doc=4002,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 4002, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4002)
    0.01658486 = weight(_text_:und in 4002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01658486 = score(doc=4002,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 4002, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4002)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Zitationen spielen eine wichtige Rolle im wissenschaftlichen Diskurs, in der Recherchepraxis sowie im Bereich der Bibliometrie. In jüngster Zeit gibt es zunehmend Initiativen, die Zitationen als Open Data zur freien Nachnutzung verfügbar machen. Der Beitrag beschreibt den Stand der Entwicklung dieser Initiativen und zeigt, dass in nächster Zeit eine kritische Masse von Daten entstehen könnte, aus denen sich gerade für Bibliotheken neue Perspektiven ergeben. Als konkrete Möglichkeit zur Partizipation für Bibliotheken wird das DFG-Projekt Linked Open Citation Database (LOC-DB) vorgestellt.
    Footnote
    Vortrag anlässlich des Bibliothekartages 2017 in Frankfurt.
  8. Ma, N.; Guan, J.; Zhao, Y.: Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis (2008) 0.01 
    0.00990557 = product of:
  0.02971671 = sum of:
    0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011973113 = score(doc=2064,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 2064, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2064)
    0.017743597 = product of:
      0.035487194 = sum of:
        0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035487194 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    The paper attempts to provide an alternative method for measuring the importance of scientific papers based on the Google's PageRank. The method is a meaningful extension of the common integer counting of citations and is then experimented for bringing PageRank to the citation analysis in a large citation network. It offers a more integrated picture of the publications' influence in a specific field. We firstly calculate the PageRanks of scientific papers. The distributional characteristics and comparison with the traditionally used number of citations are then analyzed in detail. Furthermore, the PageRank is implemented in the evaluation of research influence for several countries in the field of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology during the time period of 2000-2005. Finally, some advantages of bringing PageRank to the citation analysis are concluded.
    Date
    31. 7.2008 14:22:05
  9. Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001) 0.01 
    0.009845134 = product of:
  0.029535402 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=6920,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
    0.020700864 = product of:
      0.04140173 = sum of:
        0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04140173 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, 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=6920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Over a 35-year period, Irving H. Sher played a critical role in the development and implementation of the Science Citation Index and other ISI products. Trained as a biochemist, statistician, and linguist, Sher brought a unique combination of talents to ISI as Director of Quality Control and Director of Research and Development. His talents as a teacher and mentor evoked loyalty. He was a particularly inventive but self-taught programmer. In addition to the SCI, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index,
    Date
    16.12.2001 14:01:22
  10. Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006) 0.01 
    0.009845134 = product of:
  0.029535402 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=5269,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
    0.020700864 = product of:
      0.04140173 = sum of:
        0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04140173 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    This comparative case study of the diffusion and nondiffusion over time of eight theories in the social sciences uses citation analysis, citation context analysis, content analysis, surveys of editorial review boards, and personal interviews with theorists to develop a model of the theory functions that facilitate theory diffusion throughout specific intellectual communities. Unlike previous work on the diffusion of theories as innovations, this theory functions model differs in several important respects from the findings of previous studies that employed Everett Rogers's classic typology of innovation characteristics that promote diffusion. The model is also presented as a contribution to a more integrated theory of citation.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:20:01
  11. Stock, W.G.: Journal Citation Reports : Ein Impact Factor für Bibliotheken, Verlage und Autoren? (2001) 0.01 
    0.0093849255 = product of:
  0.028154776 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=5915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
    0.02369266 = weight(_text_:und in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02369266 = score(doc=5915,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Gibt es objektive Kriterien für die Bestellung und Abbestellung wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften? Wie lange sollte eine Bibliothek Periodikabestände benutzernah aufstellen? Kann ein Verlag -außer via Verkaufszahlen - auf Kriterien des Erfolgs seiner Zeitschriften zurückgreifen? Hat ein Autor eine Entscheidungsgrundlage, welcher Zeitschrift er seinen Artikel anbietet? Ist die Forschungsaktivität eines Instituts oder eines Wissenschaftlers über den Impact derjenigen Zeitschriftentitel zu evaluieren, die die Forschungsergebnisse drucken? Können die 'Journal Citation Reports (JCR) "des "Institute for Scientific Information" bei der Klärung solcher Fragen helfen? Sind die JCR ein nützliches oder gar ein notwendiges Hilfsmittel für Bibliotheken, für Verlage, für Wissenschaftsmanager und für wissenschaftliche Autoren? Die 'Journal Citation Reports" geben im Jahresrhythmus informetrische Kennzahlen wie die Zitationsrate, den Impact Factor, den Immediacy Index, die Halbwertszeit für eine Auswahl wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften an. Zusätzlich berichten sie darüber, weiche Zeitschriften weiche anderen Zeitschriften zitieren bzw. von diesen zitiert werden, so dass "Soziogramme" wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriftenkommunikation entstehen. Wir wollen am Beispiel des aktuellen Jahrgangs ( 1999) die JCR detailliert beschreiben, die Auswahlkriterien der Zeitschriften beleuchten, die verwendeten informetrischen Kennwerte - vor allem den Impact Factor - kritisch hinterfragen, um danach die Einsatzgebiete bei Bibliotheken, in der Wissenschaftsevaluation, bei Verlagen und bei Autoren zu diskutieren. Das Fazit sei vorweggenommen: Die JCR sind ein nicht umgehbares Hilfsmittel für die fokussierten Anwendungsbereiche. Sie sind mitnichten frei von Problemen. Wir schließen daher mit einigen Verbesserungsvorschlägen
  12. Marx, W.: Wie mißt man Forschungsqualität? : der Science Citation Index - ein Maßstab für die Bewertung (1996) 0.01 
    0.008697838 = product of:
  0.02609351 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 5036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=5036,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 5036, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5036)
    0.018954126 = weight(_text_:und in 5036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018954126 = score(doc=5036,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 5036, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5036)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Ein überfordertes Gutachter-System, knapper fließende Forschungsgelder sowie die starke Faszination von Ranglisten bewirken zunehmend den Einsatz bibliometrischer Methoden zur Messung von Forschungsqualität. Grundlage der meisten Bewertungen ist der Science Citation Index, der nun auch in der Version als Online-Datenbank für umfangreiche Analysen genutzt werden kann. Erweiterungen der Retrievalsprache beim Host STN International ermöglichen statistische Analysen, die bisher nur dem SCI-Hersteller und wenigen Spezialisten vorbehalten waren. Voraussetzung für eine sinnvolle Anwendung sind vor allem die Wahl geeigneter Selektionskriterien sowie die sorgfältige Interpretation der Ergebnisse im Rahmen der Grenzen dieser Methoden
  13. Ding, Y.; Zhang, G.; Chambers, T.; Song, M.; Wang, X.; Zhai, C.: Content-based citation analysis : the next generation of citation analysis (2014) 0.01 
    0.008438686 = product of:
  0.025316058 = sum of:
    0.0075724614 = weight(_text_:in in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075724614 = score(doc=1521,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
    0.017743597 = product of:
      0.035487194 = sum of:
        0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035487194 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1521, 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=1521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Traditional citation analysis has been widely applied to detect patterns of scientific collaboration, map the landscapes of scholarly disciplines, assess the impact of research outputs, and observe knowledge transfer across domains. It is, however, limited, as it assumes all citations are of similar value and weights each equally. Content-based citation analysis (CCA) addresses a citation's value by interpreting each one based on its context at both the syntactic and semantic levels. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of CAA research in terms of its theoretical foundations, methodical approaches, and example applications. In addition, we highlight how increased computational capabilities and publicly available full-text resources have opened this area of research to vast possibilities, which enable deeper citation analysis, more accurate citation prediction, and increased knowledge discovery.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 16:52:04
  14. Schneider, K.: Scopus contra ISI-WOS : Versuch einer vergleichenden Bewertung aus pharmakognostischer Sicht (2006) 0.01 
    0.008308224 = product of:
  0.024924671 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 39) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=39,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 39, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=39)
    0.014215595 = weight(_text_:und in 39) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014215595 = score(doc=39,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 39, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=39)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Bei der vorliegenden Präsentation handelt es sich ausdrücklich um keine umfassende statistisch-bibliometrische Vergleichsanalyse der beiden Datenbanken, sondern um die Darstellung einiger subjektiv ausgewählter, punktueller, jedoch durchaus praxisnaher Suchanfragen (Zeitraum: 23.11. - 06.12.2005). Es wurde dazu nach in Fachzeitschriften publizierten, persönlich bekannten Arbeiten österreichischer Autoren mit vorwiegend "selteneren" deutschsprachigen Namen bzw. Doppelnamen (Wolfgang Wlach, Johannes Saukel, Ulrike Kastner, Karin Zitterl-Eglseer und Roswitha SchrutkaRechtenstamm) gesucht, die am Department für Pharmakognosie / Fakultät für Lebenswissenschaften / Universität Wien wissenschaftlich arbeiten bzw. gearbeitet haben. Weitere Suchanfragen galten (aus der Mitarbeit an Hagers Handbuch der Pharmazeutischen Praxis) persönlich bekannten Arbeiten über in der Phytotherapie, Homöopathie oder Volksheilkunde genutzte Pflanzen (Adlumia, Alchornea cordifolia, Siderits scardica). Zur vergleichenden Bewertung wurden die absolute Anzahl der "relevanten, gesuchten Treffer", die Anzahl der "Dubletten-Treffer" in beiden Datenbanken sowie die in der jeweiligen Datenbank "exklusiven Treffer" tabellarisch zusammen mit eigenen Anmerkungen angeführt.
  15. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.01 
    0.007886044 = product of:
  0.04731626 = sum of:
    0.04731626 = product of:
      0.09463252 = sum of:
        0.09463252 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09463252 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  16. Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992) 0.01 
    0.007886044 = product of:
  0.04731626 = sum of:
    0.04731626 = product of:
      0.09463252 = sum of:
        0.09463252 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09463252 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, 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=4604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    7. 2.2005 14:10:22
  17. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.01 
    0.0069703436 = product of:
  0.04182206 = sum of:
    0.04182206 = product of:
      0.08364412 = sum of:
        0.08364412 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08364412 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  18. Trkulja, V.: Weltgrößte Abstracts- und Zitationsdatenbank aus dem wissenschaftlichen Web (2005) 0.01 
    0.006770741 = product of:
  0.040624447 = sum of:
    0.040624447 = weight(_text_:und in 3437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040624447 = score(doc=3437,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.41987535 = fieldWeight in 3437, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3437)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Scopus ist ein Such- und Navigationssystem für interdisziplinäre, wissenschaftliche Literatur. Die zur Zeit weltgrößte Abstract- & Zitationsdatenbank deckt 14.000 WTM-Titel von 4.000 Verlagen ab und liefert Ergebnisse aus dem wissenschaftlichen Web, inklusive Patentinformationen. Darüber hinaus unterstützt Scopus ein Volltext-Linking sowie eine erweiterte Bibliotheksintegration mit personalisierten Konfigurationsmöglichkeiten. Das neue Angebot ist überzeugend.
    Content
    Datenbestand Scopus beinhaltet - 12.650 akademische Zeitschriften (davon 1.100 Medline-Zeitschriften und 465 Open Access-Zeitschriften), - 750 Conference Proceedings, - 600 Trade Publications, - 27 Millionen Kurzfassungen der letzten zwanzig Jahre, - 230 Millionen Referenzen zu allen Kurzfassungen ab 1996 und - 180 Millionen wissenschaftliche Webseiten via Scirus. Der Inhalt wird täglich aktualisiert. Auf die Fachbereiche teilen sich die Quellen wie folgt auf: - 4.500 Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics and Engineering, - 5.900 Life and Health Sciences (100 Medline-Abdeckung), - 2.700 Social Sciences, Psychology and Economics und - 2.500 Biological, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences.
  19. Model, F.: 'Citation indexing' und Rückwärtskatalogisierung' : Beispiele für Zitatendokumentation (1964) 0.01 
    0.006318042 = product of:
  0.037908252 = sum of:
    0.037908252 = weight(_text_:und in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037908252 = score(doc=5002,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.39180204 = fieldWeight in 5002, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5002)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  20. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.01 
    0.0060039847 = product of:
  0.018011954 = sum of:
    0.0061828885 = weight(_text_:in in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061828885 = score(doc=5171,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1041228 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.011829065 = product of:
      0.02365813 = sum of:
        0.02365813 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02365813 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 181
  • d 30
  • chi 2
  • More… Less…

Themes