Search (65 results, page 2 of 4)

0.009616404 = product of:
  0.05769842 = sum of:
    0.05769842 = weight(_text_:web in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05769842 = score(doc=6851,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.009519755 = product of:
  0.057118528 = sum of:
    0.057118528 = weight(_text_:web in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057118528 = score(doc=1255,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.009519755 = product of:
  0.057118528 = sum of:
    0.057118528 = weight(_text_:web in 5940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057118528 = score(doc=5940,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.009519755 = product of:
  0.057118528 = sum of:
    0.057118528 = weight(_text_:web in 165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057118528 = score(doc=165,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.009519755 = product of:
  0.057118528 = sum of:
    0.057118528 = weight(_text_:web in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057118528 = score(doc=1065,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.009422113 = product of:
  0.056532677 = sum of:
    0.056532677 = weight(_text_:web in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056532677 = score(doc=472,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Ein Besprechungsaufsatz zur Festschrift für E. Garfield: The Web of knowledge: Festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield. Medford, NJ: Information Today 2000.

0.009422113 = product of:
  0.056532677 = sum of:
    0.056532677 = weight(_text_:web in 3848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056532677 = score(doc=3848,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 3848, 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=3848)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The Web of Science, an online database of bibliographic information produced by Thomson Reuters- draws its real value from the scholarly citation index at its core. By indexing the cited references from each paper as a separate part of the bibliographic data, a citation index creates a pathway by which a paper can be linked backward in time to the body of work that preceded it, as well as linked forward in time to its scholarly descendants. This entry provides a brief history of the development of the citation index, its core functionalities, and the way these unique data are provided to users through the Web of Science.

Object

Web of Science

0.008778536 = product of:
  0.052671213 = sum of:
    0.052671213 = weight(_text_:web in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052671213 = score(doc=471,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

We present evidence that in some research fields, research published in journals and reported on the Web may collectively represent different evolutionary stages of the field, with journals lagging a few years behind the Web on average, and that a "two-tier" scholarly communication system may therefore be evolving. We conclude that in such fields, (a) for detecting current research fronts, author co-citation analyses (ACA) using articles published on the Web as a data source can outperform traditional ACAs using articles published in journals as data, and that (b) as a result, it is important to use multiple data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication for a complete picture of communication patterns. Our evidence stems from comparing the respective intellectual structures of the XML research field, a subfield of computer science, as revealed from three sets of ACA covering two time periods: (a) from the field's beginnings in 1996 to 2001, and (b) from 2001 to 2006. For the first time period, we analyze research articles both from journals as indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) and from the Web as indexed by CiteSeer. We follow up by an ACA of SCI data for the second time period. We find that most trends in the evolution of this field from the first to the second time period that we find when comparing ACA results from the SCI between the two time periods already were apparent in the ACA results from CiteSeer during the first time period.

0.008692179 = product of:
  0.026076537 = sum of:
    0.018844226 = weight(_text_:web in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018844226 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = 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)
    0.0072323103 = product of:
      0.02169693 = sum of:
        0.02169693 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02169693 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  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

0.007851761 = product of:
  0.047110565 = sum of:
    0.047110565 = weight(_text_:web in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047110565 = score(doc=461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.007772847 = product of:
  0.04663708 = sum of:
    0.04663708 = weight(_text_:web in 3437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04663708 = score(doc=3437,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 3437, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, 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.

0.007022829 = product of:
  0.04213697 = sum of:
    0.04213697 = weight(_text_:web in 3093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04213697 = score(doc=3093,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.32250395 = fieldWeight in 3093, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3093)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

How do authors refer to Web-based information sources in their formal scientific publications? It is not yet weIl known how scientists and scholars actually include new types of information sources, available through the new media, in their published work. This article reports an a comparative study of the lists of references in 38 scientific journals in five different scientific and social scientific fields. The fields are sociology, library and information science, biochemistry and biotechnology, neuroscience, and the mathematics of computing. As is weIl known, references, citations, and hyperlinks play different roles in academic publishing and communication. Our study focuses an hyperlinks as attributes of references in formal scholarly publications. The study developed and applied a method to analyze the differential roles of publishing media in the analysis of scientific and scholarly literature references. The present secondary databases that include reference and citation data (the Web of Science) cannot be used for this type of research. By the automated processing and analysis of the full text of scientific and scholarly articles, we were able to extract the references and hyperlinks contained in these references in relation to other features of the scientific and scholarly literature. Our findings show that hyperlinking references are indeed, as expected, abundantly present in the formal literature. They also tend to cite more recent literature than the average reference. The large majority of the references are to Web instances of traditional scientific journals. Other types of Web-based information sources are less weIl represented in the lists of references, except in the case of pure e-journals. We conclude that this can be explained by taking the role of the publisher into account. Indeed, it seems that the shift from print-based to electronic publishing has created new roles for the publisher. By shaping the way scientific references are hyperlinking to other information sources, the publisher may have a large impact an the availability of scientific and scholarly information.

0.0066624405 = product of:
  0.03997464 = sum of:
    0.03997464 = weight(_text_:web in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03997464 = score(doc=5898,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 5898, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5898)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

To test feasibility of cybermetric indicators for describing and ranking university activities as shown in their Web sites, a large set of 9,330 institutions worldwide was compiled and analyzed. Using search engines' advanced features, size (number of pages), visibility (number of external inlinks), and number of rich files (pdf, ps, doc, ppt, and As formats) were obtained for each of the institutional domains of the universities. We found a statistically significant correlation between a Web ranking built on a combination of Webometric data and other university rankings based on bibliometric and other indicators. Results show that cybermetric measures could be useful for reflecting the contribution of technologically oriented institutions, increasing the visibility of developing countries, and improving the rankings based on Science Citation Index (SCI) data with known biases.

0.0065349266 = product of:
  0.03920956 = sum of:
    0.03920956 = weight(_text_:world in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03920956 = score(doc=602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 602, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=602)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this article we demonstrate the use of an integrative approach to visualizing and tracking the development of scientific paradigms. This approach is designed to reveal the long-term process of competing scientific paradigms. We assume that a cluster of highly cited and cocited scientific publications in a cocitation network represents the core of a predominant scientific paradigm. The growth of a paradigm is depicted and animated through the rise of citation rates and the movement of its core cluster towards the center of the cocitation network. We study two cases of competing scientific paradigms in the real world: (1) the causes of mass extinctions, and (2) the connections between mad cow disease and a new variant of a brain disease in humans-vCJD. Various theoretical and practical issues concerning this approach are discussed.

0.006281409 = product of:
  0.037688453 = sum of:
    0.037688453 = weight(_text_:web in 1263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037688453 = score(doc=1263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 1263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1263)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The accrual of symbolic capital is an important aspect of academic life. Successful capital formation is commonly signified by the trappings of scholarly distinction or acknowledged status as a public intellectual. We consider and compare three potential indices of symbolic capital: citation counts, Web hits, and media mentions. Our Eindings, which are domain specific, suggest that public intellectuals are notable by their absence within the information studies community.

0.0054962332 = product of:
  0.0329774 = sum of:
    0.0329774 = weight(_text_:web in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0329774 = score(doc=1676,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1676, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1676)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0054457723 = product of:
  0.032674633 = sum of:
    0.032674633 = weight(_text_:world in 1729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032674633 = score(doc=1729,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 1729, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1729)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present a narrative review of studies on the citing behavior of scientists, covering mainly research published in the last 15 years. Based on the results of these studies, the paper seeks to answer the question of the extent to which scientists are motivated to cite a publication not only to acknowledge intellectual and cognitive influences of scientific peers, but also for other, possibly non-scientific, reasons. Design/methodology/approach - The review covers research published from the early 1960s up to mid-2005 (approximately 30 studies on citing behavior-reporting results in about 40 publications). Findings - The general tendency of the results of the empirical studies makes it clear that citing behavior is not motivated solely by the wish to acknowledge intellectual and cognitive influences of colleague scientists, since the individual studies reveal also other, in part non-scientific, factors that play a part in the decision to cite. However, the results of the studies must also be deemed scarcely reliable: the studies vary widely in design, and their results can hardly be replicated. Many of the studies have methodological weaknesses. Furthermore, there is evidence that the different motivations of citers are "not so different or 'randomly given' to such an extent that the phenomenon of citation would lose its role as a reliable measure of impact". Originality/value - Given the increasing importance of evaluative bibliometrics in the world of scholarship, the question "What do citation counts measure?" is a particularly relevant and topical issue.

0.0048215403 = product of:
  0.028929241 = sum of:
    0.028929241 = product of:
      0.08678772 = sum of:
        0.08678772 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08678772 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.0047110566 = product of:
  0.028266339 = sum of:
    0.028266339 = weight(_text_:web in 39) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028266339 = score(doc=39,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 39, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=39)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Object

Web of Science

0.0047110566 = product of:
  0.028266339 = sum of:
    0.028266339 = weight(_text_:web in 1011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028266339 = score(doc=1011,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1011, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1011)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Citation analysis is performed in order to evaluate authors and scientific collections, such as journals and conference proceedings. Currently, two major systems exist that perform citation analysis: Science Citation Index (SCI) by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and CiteSeer by the NEC Research Institute. The SCI, mostly a manual system up until recently, is based on the notion of the ISI Impact Factor, which has been used extensively for citation analysis purposes. On the other hand the CiteSeer system is an automatically built digital library using agents technology, also based on the notion of ISI Impact Factor. In this paper, we investigate new alternative notions besides the ISI impact factor, in order to provide a novel approach aiming at ranking scientific collections. Furthermore, we present a web-based system that has been built by extracting data from the Databases and Logic Programming (DBLP) website of the University of Trier. Our system, by using the new citation metrics, emerges as a useful tool for ranking scientific collections. In this respect, some first remarks are presented, e.g. on ranking conferences related to databases.