Search (27 results, page 2 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. De Bellis, N.: Bibliometrics and citation analysis : from the Science citation index to cybermetrics (2008) 0.00
    0.00443345 = product of:
      0.0088669 = sum of:
        0.0088669 = product of:
          0.0177338 = sum of:
            0.0177338 = weight(_text_:m in 3585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0177338 = score(doc=3585,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.114023164 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045820985 = queryNorm
                0.15552804 = fieldWeight in 3585, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3585)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    Rez. in: JASIS 61(2010) no.1, S.205-207 (Jeppe Nicolaisen) Weitere Rez. in: Mitt VÖB 63(2010) H.1/2, S.134-135 (J. Gorraiz u. M. Wieland): "Das Buch entwickelte sich aus einem mehrjährigen Forschungsprojekt mit dem Ziel, den schwer verständlichen quantitativen Kern der Bibliometrie in einem für primär italienische Bibliothekare leichteren historischen und philosophischen Kontext zu vermitteln, wie der Autor im Vorwort erklärt. Dank einer Empfehlung von Eugene Garfield steht dieses Werk nun auch in englischer Übersetzung einer internationalen Leserschaft zur Verfügung. Die über 400 Seiten lange Monografie von de Bellis gibt in acht Kapiteln einen detaillierten und sehr präzisen Überblick über die Bibliometrie und die Zitationsanalyse, ihre Natur und Entwicklung, ihre Kontroverse und Prognose. . . . Das Buch von de Bellis ist sehr empfehlenswert für alle die beabsichtigen, sich mit dieser neuen Wissenschaft zu beschäftigen. Es endet mit folgendem Statement: "Scientometricians have to learn to live in a multidimensional world". Und genau hier liegt die Herausforderung und Schönheit dieses Metiers."
    Type
    m
  2. Thelwall, M.: Extracting macroscopic information from Web links (2001) 0.00
    0.003918653 = product of:
      0.007837306 = sum of:
        0.007837306 = product of:
          0.015674612 = sum of:
            0.015674612 = weight(_text_:m in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015674612 = score(doc=6851,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.114023164 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045820985 = queryNorm
                0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 6851, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6851)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  3. Thelwall, M.; Vaughan, L.; Björneborn, L.: Webometrics (2004) 0.00
    0.003918653 = product of:
      0.007837306 = sum of:
        0.007837306 = product of:
          0.015674612 = sum of:
            0.015674612 = weight(_text_:m in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015674612 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.114023164 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045820985 = queryNorm
                0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  4. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations : a multi-discipline exploratory analysis (2007) 0.00
    0.003918653 = product of:
      0.007837306 = sum of:
        0.007837306 = product of:
          0.015674612 = sum of:
            0.015674612 = weight(_text_:m in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015674612 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.114023164 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045820985 = queryNorm
                0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  5. Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Multiple publication on a single research study: does it pay? : The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine (2007) 0.00
    0.003918653 = product of:
      0.007837306 = sum of:
        0.007837306 = product of:
          0.015674612 = sum of:
            0.015674612 = weight(_text_:m in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015674612 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.114023164 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045820985 = queryNorm
                0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Scientists may seek to report a single definable body of research in more than one publication, that is, in repeated reports of the same work or in fractional reports, in order to disseminate their research as widely as possible in the scientific community. Up to now, however, it has not been examined whether this strategy of "multiple publication" in fact leads to greater reception of the research. In the present study, we investigate the influence of number of articles reporting the results of a single study on reception in the scientific community (total citation counts of an article on a single study). Our data set consists of 96 applicants for a research fellowship from the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds (BIF), an international foundation for the promotion of basic research in biomedicine. The applicants reported to us all articles that they had published within the framework of their doctoral research projects. On this single project, the applicants had published from 1 to 16 articles (M = 4; Mdn = 3). The results of a regression model with an interaction term show that the practice of multiple publication of research study results does in fact lead to greater reception of the research (higher total citation counts) in the scientific community. However, reception is dependent upon length of article: the longer the article, the more total citation counts increase with the number of articles. Thus, it pays for scientists to practice multiple publication of study results in the form of sizable reports.
  6. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google book search : citation analysis for social science and the humanities (2009) 0.00
    0.003918653 = product of:
      0.007837306 = sum of:
        0.007837306 = product of:
          0.015674612 = sum of:
            0.015674612 = weight(_text_:m in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015674612 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.114023164 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045820985 = queryNorm
                0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  7. Chen, C.: Mapping scientific frontiers : the quest for knowledge visualization (2003) 0.00
    0.0031349224 = product of:
      0.0062698447 = sum of:
        0.0062698447 = product of:
          0.012539689 = sum of:
            0.012539689 = weight(_text_:m in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.012539689 = score(doc=2213,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.114023164 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045820985 = queryNorm
                0.10997493 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    m