Search (113 results, page 6 of 6)

0.002708723 = product of:
  0.013543615 = sum of:
    0.013543615 = weight(_text_:of in 4175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013543615 = score(doc=4175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 4175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4175)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.002708723 = product of:
  0.013543615 = sum of:
    0.013543615 = weight(_text_:of in 1011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013543615 = score(doc=1011,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 1011, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1011)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.0027087228 = product of:
  0.013543614 = sum of:
    0.013543614 = weight(_text_:of in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013543614 = score(doc=2095,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20732687 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Many authors have posited a social component in citation, the consensus being that the citers and citees often have interpersonal as well as intellectual ties. Evidence for this belief has been rather meager, however, in part because social networks researchers have lacked bibliometric data (e.g., pairwise citation counts from online databases), and citation analysts have lacked sociometric data (e.g., pairwise measures of acquaintanceship). In 1997 Nazer extensively measured personal relationships and communication behaviors in what we call "Globenet," an international group of 16 researchers from seven disciplines that was established in 1993 to study human development. Since Globenet's membership is known, it was possible during 2002 to obtain citation records for all members in databases of the Institute for Scientific Information. This permitted examination of how members cited each other (intercited) in journal articles over the past three decades and in a 1999 book to which they all contributed. It was also possible to explore links between the intercitation data and the social and communication data. Using network-analytic techniques, we look at the growth of intercitation over time, the extent to which it follows disciplinary or interdisciplinary lines, whether it covaries with degrees of acquaintanceship, whether it reflects Globenet's organizational structure, whether it is associated with particular in-group communication patterns, and whether it is related to the cocitation of Globenet members. Results show cocitation to be a powerful predictor of intercitation in the journal articles, while being an editor or co-author is an important predictor in the book. Intellectual ties based an shared content did better as predictors than content-neutral social ties like friendship. However, interciters in Globenet communicated more than did noninterciters.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.2, S.111-126

0.0025538085 = product of:
  0.0127690425 = sum of:
    0.0127690425 = weight(_text_:of in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0127690425 = score(doc=3183,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 3183, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3183)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A recently proposed stochastic model to describe the citation process in the presence of obsolescence is used to answer the question: If a paper has not been cited by time t after its publication, what is the probability that it will ever be cited?

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.3, S.232-235

0.0025538085 = product of:
  0.0127690425 = sum of:
    0.0127690425 = weight(_text_:of in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0127690425 = score(doc=1064,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

It has been shown (Lawrence, S. (2001). Online or invisible? Nature, 411, 521) that journal articles which have been posted without charge on the internet are more heavily cited than those which have not been. Using data from the NASA Astrophysics Data System (ads.harvard.edu) and from the ArXiv e-print archive at Cornell University (arXiv.org) we examine the causes of this effect.

0.0025538085 = product of:
  0.0127690425 = sum of:
    0.0127690425 = weight(_text_:of in 3585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0127690425 = score(doc=3585,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 3585, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3585)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Inhalt: Biblio/sciento/infor-metrics : terminological issues and early historical developments -- The empirical foundations of bibliometrics : the Science citation index -- The philosophical foundations of bibliometrics : Bernal, Merton, Price, Garfield, and Small -- The mathematical foundations of bibliometrics -- Maps and paradigms : bibliographic citations at the service of the history and sociology of science -- Impact factor and the evaluation of scientists : bibliographic citations at the service of science policy and management -- On the shoulders of dwarfs : citation as rhetorical device and the criticisms to the normative model -- Measuring scientific communication in the twentieth century : from bibliometrics to cybermetrics.

0.0025237037 = product of:
  0.012618518 = sum of:
    0.012618518 = weight(_text_:of in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012618518 = score(doc=337,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.7, S.1055-1065

0.0022572693 = product of:
  0.011286346 = sum of:
    0.011286346 = weight(_text_:of in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011286346 = score(doc=225,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Citation-chasing is proposed as a method of discovering additional terms to enhance subjectsearch retrieval. Subjects attached to OCLC records for cited works are compared to those attached to original citing sources. Citing sources were produced via a subject-list search in a library catalog using the LCSH "Language and languages-Origin." A subject-search was employed to avoid subjectivity in choosing sources. References from the sources were searched in OCLC where applicable, and the subject headings were retrieved. The subjects were ranked by citation-frequency and tiered into 3 groups in a Bradford-like distribution. Highly cited subjects were produced that were not revealed through the original search. A difference in relative importance among the subjects was also revealed. Broad extra-linguistic topics like evolution are more prominent than specific linguistic topics like phonology. There are exceptions, which appear somewhat predictable by the amount of imbalance in citation-representation among the 2 sources. Citation leaders were also produced for authors and secondary-source titles.

Source

Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch

0.0019153564 = product of:
  0.009576782 = sum of:
    0.009576782 = weight(_text_:of in 4806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009576782 = score(doc=4806,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.14660224 = fieldWeight in 4806, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4806)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Many scientific publications are now available on the World Wide Web for researchers to share research findings. However, they tend to be poorly organised, making the search of relevant publications difficult and time-consuming. Most existing search engines are ineffective in searching these publications, as they do not index Web publications that normally appear in PDF (portable document format) or PostScript formats. Proposes a Web citation-based retrieval system, known as PubSearch, for the retrieval of Web publications. PubSearch indexes Web publications based on citation indices and stores them into a Web Citation Database. The Web Citation Database is then mined to support publication retrieval. Apart from supporting the traditional cited reference search, PubSearch also provides document clustering search and author clustering search. Document clustering groups related publications into clusters, while author clustering categorizes authors into different research areas based on author co-citation analysis.

0.0018058153 = product of:
  0.009029076 = sum of:
    0.009029076 = weight(_text_:of in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009029076 = score(doc=1746,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 1746, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1746)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.10, S.1404-1405

0.0016630089 = product of:
  0.008315044 = sum of:
    0.008315044 = product of:
      0.041575223 = sum of:
        0.041575223 = weight(_text_:problem in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041575223 = score(doc=5787,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 5787, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5787)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Die empirische Wissenschaftsforschung arbeitet bei den Indikatoren wissenschaftlicher Leistung und wissenschaftlicher Wirkung mit Publikations- und Zitationsraten. Die vorliegende Arbeit befaßt sich mit dabei auftretenden methodischen Problemen. Was ist überhaupt eine Publikation? Was heißt Zitation? Zentral ist auch die Zählbasis, d.h. die Einheitenbildung: Was ist 1 Publikation? und: Was ist 1 Zitation? Bei Printpublikationen gibt es eine Reihe von beachtenswerten Faktoren (u.a. Mehrautorenwerke, Gewichtungsfaktoren wie den Impact Factor, Dokumenttypen). Bei elektronischen Publikationen im Internet mit ihrem dynamischen Charakter ist die Einheitenbildung noch weitaus problematischer. Zitationen, verstanden als zitierte Publikationen, werfen alle methodischen Probleme der Publikationseinheiten auf, hinzu kommen weitere, spezifische Probleme. Lösungsmöglichkeiten im syntaktischen Bereich (Relativierung auf Textseiten oder Zeichen) ändern am grundlegenden Problem nur wenig, Lösungsversuche im semantischen Bereich (etwa im Rahmen der semantischen Informationstheorie) sind im Rahmen der Publikations- und Zitationsanalysen nicht durchführbar und verweisen sowohl auf themenanalytische Methoden als auch auf die Wissenschaftstheorie. Mit diesem Working Paper wollen wir vor allem auf offene Probleme hinweisen; "endgültige" Lösungen wird der Leser nicht finden, wohl aber Lösungsvorschläge, die meist durchaus noch diskussionswürdig sind. In der Informationswissenschaft wie in der Wissenschaftsforschung sind wir bisher viel zu sicher davon ausgegangen, daß wir wissen, was Publikationen und Zitationen sind

0.0013543615 = product of:
  0.0067718076 = sum of:
    0.0067718076 = weight(_text_:of in 39) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067718076 = score(doc=39,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.103663445 = fieldWeight in 39, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=39)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Object

Web of Science

9.0290763E-4 = product of:
  0.004514538 = sum of:
    0.004514538 = weight(_text_:of in 2920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004514538 = score(doc=2920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.06910896 = fieldWeight in 2920, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2920)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Die Szientometrie beschäftigt sich mit der Messbarkeit wissenschaftlicher Leistungen anhand bibliothekarisch nachweisbarer Publikationsergebnisse. Bei genauer Betrachtung ist es ihr Ziel, die Wissenszunahme der Wissenschaft zu messen. Die wissenschaftliche Produktion in Form von Publikationen wächst seit über dreihundert Jahren konstant mit ca. 3,5% pro Jahr. Das entspricht einerVerdopplungsrate von 20 Jahren, die zuerst dem Bibliothekar Fremont Rider 1948 bei Büchern auffiel und die 1963 von Derek J. de Solla Price auch für das Wachstum von Zeitschriften und Bibliografien bestätigt wurde. Die Konstanz dieser Evolution, unabhängig aller sich ereignenden Katastrophen, ist nur zum Teil verstanden, macht aber den unaufhaltsamen Fortschritt der Wissenschaft deutlich. Alle 20 Jahre wird so viel publiziert wie in allen Jahrhunderten davor. Eine etwa gleiche Zunahme verzeichnen die Wissenschaftler, die damit etwa gleich produktiv bleiben. Von ihnen allen sind damit ca. 87% unsere heutigen Zeitgenossen. Aus diesem Wachstum heraus können wir abschätzen, dass in 100.000 laufenden Zeitschriften heute etwa 10 Mio. Publikationen jährlich erscheinen, die von 10 Mio. Wissenschaftlern verfasst werden. Dabei definieren sich nur die als Wissenschaftler, die durchschnittlich eine Publikation jährlich verfassen. Die gesamte Produktion an Buchtiteln, die bisher erschien, dürfte bei etwa 100 Mio. liegen. Davon sind etwa 20 Mio. als wissenschaftlich einzustufen. Wenn folglich 87% aller Wissenschaftler noch heute leben, so betrug die Gesamtzahl der Wissenschaftler in der Welt bisher 11,5 Mio., die in ihrem Leben durchschnittlich 1,5 Bücher pro Kopf verfassten, und etwa das 10-20fache an Zeitschriftenbeiträgen leisteten. Ein Teil dieser Bücher sind allerdings Neuauflagen und Übersetzungen. Nach Lotka, A. J. ist die Produktivität der Wissenschaftler eine schiefe Verteilung von der Form A/n**2, wobei A die Zahl der Autoren mit nur einer Publikation ist und n die Publikationen pro Autor. Während Price in seinen "Networks of Scientific Papers" Vergleichswerte von n**2,5 bis n**3 angab, zeigten Untersuchungen am Science Citation Index (SCI), die auf die gesamte naturwissenschaftliche Literatur hochgerechnet wurden, eher einen Wert von n**1,7. Auf die Tatsache, dass eine Verdopplungsrate der Wissenschaftler von 20 Jahren und eine solche der Menschheit von etwa 50 Jahren dazu führt, dass eines Tages alle Menschen Wissenschaftler werden, hat Price bereits 1963 hingewiesen. Dieser Zustand müsste bei 10 Mio. Wissenschaftlern und 6 Mrd. Menschen in etwa 300 Jahren eintreten, ein nur scheinbar absurder Gedanke, wenn man bedenkt, dass man sich vor 300 Jahren auch kaum vorstellen konnte, dass alle Menschen Lesen, Schreiben und Rechnen lernen können, und dass wir uns ungebildete Menschen immer weniger leisten können.