Search (82 results, page 2 of 5)

0.026394749 = product of:
  0.105578996 = sum of:
    0.105578996 = weight(_text_:search in 1474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105578996 = score(doc=1474,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.6144187 = fieldWeight in 1474, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1474)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.024682263 = product of:
  0.09872905 = sum of:
    0.09872905 = weight(_text_:web in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09872905 = score(doc=2270,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Philadelphia, PA USA-London UK-Princeton, NJ February, 25, 2004 - Today, Thomson ISI and NEC Laboratories America (NEC) announced their collaboration to create a comprehensive, multidisciplinary citation index for Web-based scholarly resources. The new Web Citation Index(tm) will combine a suite of technologies developed by NEC, including "autonomous citation indexing" tools from NEC's CiteSeer environment, with the capabilities underlying ISI Web of KnowledgeSM. Thomson ISI editors will carefully monitor the quality of this new resource to ensure all indexed material meets the Thomson ISI high-quality standards. During 2004, Thomson ISI and NEC will operate a pilot of the new resource to receive feedback from the scientific and scholarly community. Full access to the index is projected for early 2005. When fully operational, the new resource will be a unique content collection within ISI Web of Knowledge. It will complement the Thomson ISI Web of Science(r), and provide researchers with a new gateway to discovery 4/3 using citation relationships among Web-based documents, such as pre-prints, proceedings, and "open access" research publications.

Object

Web of Science

0.023095407 = product of:
  0.09238163 = sum of:
    0.09238163 = weight(_text_:search in 445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09238163 = score(doc=445,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.5376164 = fieldWeight in 445, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=445)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.022996342 = product of:
  0.09198537 = sum of:
    0.09198537 = weight(_text_:web in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09198537 = score(doc=337,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We use a new data gathering method, "Web/URL citation," Web/URL and Google Scholar to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, and education) based upon a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 open access (OA) journals published in 2001. A Web/URL citation of an online journal article is a Web mention of its title, URL, or both. For each discipline, except psychology, we found significant correlations between Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI, here: ISI) citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations. Google Scholar citations correlated more highly with ISI citations than did Google Web/URL citations, indicating that the Web/URL method measures a broader type of citation phenomenon. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines, suggesting that Google Scholar is more comprehensive for social sciences and perhaps also when conference articles are valued and published online. We also found large disciplinary differences in the percentage overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citation sources. Finally, although we found many significant trends, there were also numerous exceptions, suggesting that replacing traditional citation sources with the Web or Google Scholar for research impact calculations would be problematic.

0.02036183 = product of:
  0.08144732 = sum of:
    0.08144732 = weight(_text_:web in 2584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08144732 = score(doc=2584,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 2584, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2584)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.02036183 = product of:
  0.08144732 = sum of:
    0.08144732 = weight(_text_:web in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08144732 = score(doc=3890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.02036183 = product of:
  0.08144732 = sum of:
    0.08144732 = weight(_text_:web in 3940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08144732 = score(doc=3940,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 3940, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3940)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.02036183 = product of:
  0.08144732 = sum of:
    0.08144732 = weight(_text_:web in 4205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08144732 = score(doc=4205,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 4205, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4205)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.02000121 = product of:
  0.08000484 = sum of:
    0.08000484 = weight(_text_:search in 8219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08000484 = score(doc=8219,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.46558946 = fieldWeight in 8219, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8219)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Explores the relationship between the number of cited references used in a citation search and retrieval effectiveness. Focuses on analysing in terms of information retrieval effectiveness, the overlap among posting sets retrieved by various combinations of cited references. Findings from three case studies show the more cited references used for a citation search, the better the performance, in terms of retrieving more relevant documents, up to a point of diminishing returns. The overall level of overlap among relevant documents sets was found to be low. If only some of the cited references among many candidates are used for a citation search, a significant proportion of relevant documents may be missed. The characteristics of cited references showed that some variables are good indicators to predict relevance to a given question

0.01979606 = product of:
  0.07918424 = sum of:
    0.07918424 = weight(_text_:search in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07918424 = score(doc=2290,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.460814 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Search results for nine topics in the medical behavioral sciences are reanalyzed to compare the overall perfor-mance of descriptor and citation search strategies in identifying relevant and novel documents. Overlap per- centages between an aggregate "descriptor-based" database (MEDLINE, EXERPTA MEDICA, PSYCINFO) and an aggregate "citation-based" database (SCISEARCH, SOCIAL SCISEARCH) ranged from 1% to 26%, with a median overlap of 8% relevant retrievals found using both search strategies. For seven topics in which both descriptor and citation strategies produced reasonably substantial retrievals, two patterns of search performance and novelty distribution were observed: (1) where descriptor and citation retrieval showed little overlap, novelty retrieval percentages differed by 17-23% between the two strategies; (2) topics with a relatively high percentage retrieval overlap shoed little difference (1-4%) in descriptor and citation novelty retrieval percentages. These results reflect the varying partial congruence of two literature networks and represent two different types of subject relevance

0.019513045 = product of:
  0.07805218 = sum of:
    0.07805218 = weight(_text_:web in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07805218 = score(doc=5021,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 5021, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5021)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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".

Object

Web of Science

0.019513045 = product of:
  0.07805218 = sum of:
    0.07805218 = weight(_text_:web in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07805218 = score(doc=943,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Citation analysis of documents retrieved from the Medline database (at the Web of Knowledge) has been possible only on a case-by-case basis. A technique is presented here for citation analysis in batch mode using both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) at the Web of Knowledge and the Science Citation Index at the Web of Science (WoS). This freeware routine is applied to the case of "Brugada Syndrome," a specific disease and field of research (since 1992). The journals containing these publications, for example, are attributed to WoS categories other than "cardiac and cardiovascular systems", perhaps because of the possibility of genetic testing for this syndrome in the clinic. With this routine, all the instruments available for citation analysis can now be used on the basis of MeSH terms. Other options for crossing between Medline, WoS, and Scopus are also reviewed.

Object

Web of Knowledge

0.018333694 = product of:
  0.036667388 = sum of:
    0.023270661 = weight(_text_:web in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023270661 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.013396727 = product of:
      0.026793454 = sum of:
        0.026793454 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026793454 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.01781289 = product of:
  0.07125156 = sum of:
    0.07125156 = weight(_text_:web in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07125156 = score(doc=6851,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 6851, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6851)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Much has been written about the potential and pitfalls of macroscopic Web-based link analysis, yet there have been no studies that have provided clear statistical evidence that any of the proposed calculations can produce results over large areas of the Web that correlate with phenomena external to the Internet. This article attempts to provide such evidence through an evaluation of Ingwersen's (1998) proposed external Web Impact Factor (WIF) for the original use of the Web: the interlinking of academic research. In particular, it studies the case of the relationship between academic hyperlinks and research activity for universities in Britain, a country chosen for its variety of institutions and the existence of an official government rating exercise for research. After reviewing the numerous reasons why link counts may be unreliable, it demonstrates that four different WIFs do, in fact, correlate with the conventional academic research measures. The WIF delivering the greatest correlation with research rankings was the ratio of Web pages with links pointing at research-based pages to faculty numbers. The scarcity of links to electronic academic papers in the data set suggests that, in contrast to citation analysis, this WIF is measuring the reputations of universities and their scholars, rather than the quality of their publications

0.01763386 = product of:
  0.07053544 = sum of:
    0.07053544 = weight(_text_:web in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07053544 = score(doc=1255,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

Object

Web of science

0.01763386 = product of:
  0.07053544 = sum of:
    0.07053544 = weight(_text_:web in 5940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07053544 = score(doc=5940,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 5940, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5940)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Bibliographische Datenbanken sind immer noch von Bedeutung, obwohl diee-Zeitschriften-Plattformen der Verlage (z.B. ScienceDirect) und die Institutional Repositories (Publikationsdatenbanken einzelner wissenschaftlicher Institutionen) auch Suchmöglichkeiten anbieten. Nur in bibliographischen Datenbanken kann verlags- und institutionsübergreifend nach Fachliteratur zu einem Thema bzw. nach wissenschaftlichen Publikationen eines Autors / einer Autorin gesucht werden. Ein wichtiger Ansatzpunktzur Bewertung des Inhaltes einer bibliographischen Datenbank - und erst recht für einen inhaltlichen Vergleich zwischen zwei Konkurrenzdatenbanken - ist daher eine Analyse der darin enthaltenen Zeitschriften hinsichtlich der Anzahl der erfassten Zeitschriften, aber auch hinsichtlich der Wissenschaftlichkeit, der fachlichen Ausrichtung, der Vollständigkeit und der Aktualität derselben. Im Folgenden soll ein solcher Vergleich für das Web of Science und für Scopus versucht werden.

Object

Web of Science

0.01763386 = product of:
  0.07053544 = sum of:
    0.07053544 = weight(_text_:web in 165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07053544 = score(doc=165,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 165, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=165)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The use of citation counts to assess the impact of research articles is well established. However, the citation impact of an article can only be measured several years after it has been published. As research articles are increasingly accessed through the Web, the number of times an article is downloaded can be instantly recorded and counted. One would expect the number of times an article is read to be related both to the number of times it is cited and to how old the article is. The authors analyze how short-term Web usage impact predicts medium-term citation impact. The physics e-print archive-arXiv.org-is used to test this.

0.01763386 = product of:
  0.07053544 = sum of:
    0.07053544 = weight(_text_:web in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07053544 = score(doc=1065,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article reveals different patterns of scholarly communication in the XML research field on the Web and in print journals in terms of author visibility, and challenges the common practice of exclusively using the ISI's databases to obtain citation counts as scientific performance indicators. Results from this study demonstrate both the importance and the feasibility of the use of multiple citation data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication, and provide evidence for a developing "two tier" scholarly communication system.

0.017452994 = product of:
  0.06981198 = sum of:
    0.06981198 = weight(_text_:web in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06981198 = score(doc=3890,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Das ISI in Philadelphia bündelt seine großen Zitationsdatenbanken und bietet sie (vorzugsweise als Intranet-, aber auch als Internetlösung) als 'Web of Science'an. Im derzeitigen entwicklungsstand geht 'Web of Science' bis in die 70er Jahre zurück und weist damit knapp 20 Mill. Quellenartikel mit darin enthaltenen rund 300 Mill. Zitationen in einer einzigen datenbank nach. Neben 'gewohnten' Suchstrategien etwa nach Sachthemen oder Namen werden zitationsanalytische Suchstrategien geboten: Recherchen nach zitierter Literatur, nach zitierenden Artikeln und nach (im Sinne gemeinsamer Fußnoten) 'verwandten' Artikeln. Die Ausgabefunktionen umfassen Document Delivery via ISI sowie Links zu Artikeln, die parallel zur Druckausgabe im WWW erscheinen. Durch die Multidisziplinarität der ISI-Datenbanken sind als Kundenkreis vor allem Einrichtungen angesprochen, die mehrere Wissenschaftsfächer berühren. Hochschulbibliotheken oder Bibliotheken großer Forschungseinrichtungen dürften am 'Web of Science' kaum vorbeikommen. Parallele Produkte bei Online-Archiven, auf CD-ROM oder als Druckausgabe verlieren an Bedeutung

Object

Web of Science

0.017452994 = product of:
  0.06981198 = sum of:
    0.06981198 = weight(_text_:web in 5768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06981198 = score(doc=5768,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 5768, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5768)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A citation analysis of undergraduate term papers in microeconomics revealed a significant decrease in the frequency of scholarly resources cited between 1996 and 1999. Book citations decreased from 30% to 19%, newspaper citations increased from 7% to 19%, and Web citations increased from 9% to 21%. Web citations checked in 2000 revealed that only 18% of URLs cited in 1996 led to the correct Internet document. For 1999 bibliographies, only 55% of URLs led to the correct document. The authors recommend (1) setting stricter guidelines for acceptable citations in course assignments; (2) creating and maintaining scholarly portals for authoritative Web sites with a commitment to long-term access; and (3) continuing to instruct students how to critically evaluate resources