-
Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996)
0.04
0.041375645 = sum of:
0.023812523 = product of:
0.11906262 = sum of:
0.11906262 = weight(_text_:authors in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11906262 = score(doc=4215,freq=8.0), product of:
0.19698687 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.04321011 = queryNorm
0.60441905 = fieldWeight in 4215, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4215)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.017563121 = product of:
0.035126243 = sum of:
0.035126243 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035126243 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15131445 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04321011 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles
-
Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992)
0.02
0.023417495 = product of:
0.04683499 = sum of:
0.04683499 = product of:
0.09366998 = sum of:
0.09366998 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09366998 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15131445 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04321011 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 7. 2.2005 14:10:22
-
McCain, K.W.: Mapping authors in intellectual space : a technical overview (1990)
0.02
0.015875015 = product of:
0.03175003 = sum of:
0.03175003 = product of:
0.15875015 = sum of:
0.15875015 = weight(_text_:authors in 6903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15875015 = score(doc=6903,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19698687 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.04321011 = queryNorm
0.80589205 = fieldWeight in 6903, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6903)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Piternick, A.B.: Name of an author! (1992)
0.01
0.014031665 = product of:
0.02806333 = sum of:
0.02806333 = product of:
0.14031665 = sum of:
0.14031665 = weight(_text_:authors in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14031665 = score(doc=3293,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19698687 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.04321011 = queryNorm
0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 3293, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3293)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Citing authors' names in indexes and references can cause great difficulties, as ghosts, subterfuges, and collaborative teamwork may often obscure the true begetters of published works. Presents a collection of facts and findings about authors that relate in one way or another to their names
-
Leydesdorff, L.: Theories of citation? (1999)
0.01
0.009822165 = product of:
0.01964433 = sum of:
0.01964433 = product of:
0.098221645 = sum of:
0.098221645 = weight(_text_:authors in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.098221645 = score(doc=5130,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19698687 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.04321011 = queryNorm
0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Citations support the communication of specialist knowledge by allowing authors and readers to make specific selections in several contexts at the same time. In the interactions between the social network of authors and the network of their reflexive communications, a sub textual code of communication with a distributed character has emerged. Citation analysis reflects on citation practices. Reference lists are aggregated in scientometric analysis using one of the available contexts to reduce the complexity: geometrical representations of dynamic operations are reflected in corresponding theories of citation. The specific contexts represented in the modern citation can be deconstructed from the perspective of the cultural evolution of scientific communication
-
Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998)
0.01
0.008781561 = product of:
0.017563121 = sum of:
0.017563121 = product of:
0.035126243 = sum of:
0.035126243 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035126243 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15131445 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04321011 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 5.1999 19:33:24
-
Baird, L.M.; Oppenheim, C.: Do citations matter? (1994)
0.01
0.008418999 = product of:
0.016837997 = sum of:
0.016837997 = product of:
0.08418998 = sum of:
0.08418998 = weight(_text_:authors in 6896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08418998 = score(doc=6896,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19698687 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.04321011 = queryNorm
0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 6896, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6896)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Citation indexes are based on the principle of authors citing previous articles of relevance. The paper demonstrates the long history of citing for precedent and notes how ISI's citation indexes differ from 'Shephards Citations'. The paper analyses some of the criticisms of citations counting, and some of the uses for which citation analysis has been employed. The paper also examines the idea of the development of an Acknowledgement Index, and concludes such an index is unlikely to be commercially viable. The paper describes a citation study of Eugene Garfield, and concludes that he may be the most heavily cited information scientist, that he is a heavy self-citer, and that the reasons why other authors cite Garfield are different from the reasons why he cites himself. The paper concludes that citation studies remain a valid methgod of analysis of individuals', institutions', or journals' impact, but need to be used with caution and in conjunction with other measures
-
Raan, A.F.J. van: ¬The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results (1998)
0.01
0.008418999 = product of:
0.016837997 = sum of:
0.016837997 = product of:
0.08418998 = sum of:
0.08418998 = weight(_text_:authors in 5120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08418998 = score(doc=5120,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19698687 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.04321011 = queryNorm
0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 5120, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5120)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- There is an ongoing discussion on the influence of international collaboration on impact as measured by citation based indicators. Collaboration generally involves more authors than 'no collaboration' work and it is obvious that the phenomenon of self citation will be stronger (there are more authors to cite themselves). Thus it can be seen as an important 'amplifier' of measured impact. Asserts, however, that this effect should not be considered as the only or even major explanation of higher impact in the comparison between 'no collaboration' and international collaboration. Using data of an extensive bibliometric study of astronomical research in the Netherlands, proves that higher rates of self citation in international collaboration do not play any significant role as 'impact amplifier'. The central point is that proper impact measurement must involve corrections for self citations
-
Cronin, B.: Tiered citation and measures of document similarity (1994)
0.01
0.007937508 = product of:
0.015875015 = sum of:
0.015875015 = product of:
0.07937507 = sum of:
0.07937507 = weight(_text_:authors in 7773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07937507 = score(doc=7773,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19698687 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.04321011 = queryNorm
0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 7773, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7773)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The degree of similarity netween pairs of cited and citing documents is frequently small. One factor may be the ways in which authors draw upon and cite the work of others. The idea of tiered, or multilayered, citation is proposed as a means of testing this hypothesis. A tentative citation typology is outlined
-
Persson, O.; Beckmann, M.: Locating the network of interacting authors in scientific specialities (1995)
0.01
0.007937508 = product of:
0.015875015 = sum of:
0.015875015 = product of:
0.07937507 = sum of:
0.07937507 = weight(_text_:authors in 3300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07937507 = score(doc=3300,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19698687 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.04321011 = queryNorm
0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 3300, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3300)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
White, H.D.; McCain, K.W.: Visualizing a discipline : an author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972-1995 (1998)
0.01
0.007937508 = product of:
0.015875015 = sum of:
0.015875015 = product of:
0.07937507 = sum of:
0.07937507 = weight(_text_:authors in 5020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07937507 = score(doc=5020,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19698687 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.04321011 = queryNorm
0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 5020, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5020)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Presents an extensive domain analysis of information science in terms of its authors. Names of those most frequently cited in 12 key journals from 1972 through 1995 were retrieved from Social SciSearch via Dialog. The top 120 were submitted to author co-citation analyzes, yielding automatic classifications relevant to histories of the field
-
Garfield, E.: When to cite (1996)
0.01
0.007937508 = product of:
0.015875015 = sum of:
0.015875015 = product of:
0.07937507 = sum of:
0.07937507 = weight(_text_:authors in 7080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07937507 = score(doc=7080,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19698687 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.04321011 = queryNorm
0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 7080, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7080)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In spite of numerous studies of citation behaviour and the wide recognition by journal editors of the need to acknowledge intellectual debts, authors and referees need explicit reminders as to when formal refrences or acknowledgements are appropriate. Notes a 3 year experiment involving graduate students which demonstrated the varying perceptions of the need for documentation off terminology, ideas and methods. Suggests a tentative tutorial for journal editors that should be modified in each scholarly context
-
Spasser, M.A.: ¬The enacted fate of undiscovered public knowledge (1997)
0.01
0.0069453195 = product of:
0.013890639 = sum of:
0.013890639 = product of:
0.069453195 = sum of:
0.069453195 = weight(_text_:authors in 198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.069453195 = score(doc=198,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19698687 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.04321011 = queryNorm
0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 198, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=198)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In a series of articles, Don Swanson explores the problem of associating two or more literatures that are logically, or substantively, related, but bibliographically noninteractive. He has called these implicit links among published literatures undicovered public knowledge. This article explores the fate of Swanson's ideas, using citation content analysis both to determine which authors have utilized Swanson's ideas and to examine the uses to which they have been put. The results suggest that while Swanson has received significant attention from the library and information science community, his ideas have not been widely cited in biomedical disciplines, and, when cited, only with rhetorically dismissive qualifications that detracts from their facticity. These results are interpreted as a failed instance of interdisciplinarity communication, and several explanations of this failure are discussed
-
Snyder, H.; Cronin, B.; Davenport, E.: What's the use of citation? : Citation analysis as a literature topic in selected disciplines of the social sciences (1995)
0.01
0.005953131 = product of:
0.011906262 = sum of:
0.011906262 = product of:
0.05953131 = sum of:
0.05953131 = weight(_text_:authors in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05953131 = score(doc=1825,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19698687 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.04321011 = queryNorm
0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a study to investigate the place and role of citation analysis in selected disciplines in the social sciences, including library and information science. 5 core library and information science periodicals: Journal of documentation; Library quarterly; Journal of the American Society for Information Science; College and research libraries; and the Journal of information science, were studed to determine the percentage of articles devoted to citation analysis and develop an indictive typology to categorize the major foci of research being conducted under the rubric of citation analysis. Similar analysis was conducted for periodicals in other social sciences disciplines. Demonstrates how the rubric can be used to dertermine how citatiion analysis is applied within library and information science and other disciplines. By isolating citation from bibliometrics in general, this work is differentiated from other, previous studies. Analysis of data from a 10 year sample of transdisciplinary social sciences literature suggests that 2 application areas predominate: the validity of citation as an evaluation tool; and impact or performance studies of authors, periodicals, and institutions
-
Moed, H.F.; Bruin, R.E.D.; Leeuwen, T.N.V.: New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance : database description, overview of indicators and first applications (1995)
0.01
0.005953131 = product of:
0.011906262 = sum of:
0.011906262 = product of:
0.05953131 = sum of:
0.05953131 = weight(_text_:authors in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05953131 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19698687 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.04321011 = queryNorm
0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Gives an outline of a new bibliometric database based upon all articles published by authors from the Netherlands and processed during 1980-1993 by ISI for the SCI, SSCI and AHCI. Describes various types of information added to the database: data on articles citing the Dutch publications; detailed citation data on ISI journals and subfields; and a classification system of the main publishing organizations. Also gives an overview of the types of bibliometric indicators constructed. and discusses their relationship to indicators developed by other researchers in the field. Gives 2 applications to illustrate the potentials of the database and of the bibliometric indicators derived from it: one that represents a synthesis of 'classical' macro indicator studies on the one hand and bibliometric analyses of research groups on the other; and a second that gives for the first time a detailed analysis of a country's publications per institutional sector
