Search (33 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.05 
    0.05128827 = product of:
  0.17950894 = sum of:
    0.05584242 = weight(_text_:j in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05584242 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031287372 = queryNorm
        0.5617073 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
    0.123666525 = sum of:
      0.05584242 = weight(_text_:j in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05584242 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.031287372 = queryNorm
          0.5617073 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.06782411 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06782411 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.109563045 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.031287372 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  2. Nicolaisen, J.: ¬The J-shaped distribution of citedness (2002) 0.02 
    0.020726124 = product of:
  0.07254143 = sum of:
    0.048360955 = weight(_text_:j in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048360955 = score(doc=3765,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031287372 = queryNorm
        0.48645282 = fieldWeight in 3765, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3765)
    0.024180477 = product of:
      0.048360955 = sum of:
        0.048360955 = weight(_text_:j in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048360955 = score(doc=3765,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031287372 = queryNorm
            0.48645282 = fieldWeight in 3765, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3765)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    A new approach for investigating the correlation between research quality and citation counts is presented and applied to a case study of the relationship between peer evaluations reflected in scholarly book reviews and the citation frequencies of reviewed books. Results of the study designate a J-shaped distribution between the considered variables, presumably caused by a skewed allocation of negative citations. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research.
  3. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.02 
    0.019233104 = product of:
  0.06731586 = sum of:
    0.02094091 = weight(_text_:j in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02094091 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031287372 = queryNorm
        0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.04637495 = sum of:
      0.02094091 = weight(_text_:j in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02094091 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.031287372 = queryNorm
          0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
      0.025434041 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025434041 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.109563045 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.031287372 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
  4. Ma, N.; Guan, J.; Zhao, Y.: Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis (2008) 0.02 
    0.019233104 = product of:
  0.06731586 = sum of:
    0.02094091 = weight(_text_:j in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02094091 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031287372 = queryNorm
        0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 2064, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2064)
    0.04637495 = sum of:
      0.02094091 = weight(_text_:j in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02094091 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.031287372 = queryNorm
          0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 2064, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2064)
      0.025434041 = weight(_text_:22 in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025434041 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.109563045 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.031287372 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2064, 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=2064)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Date
    31. 7.2008 14:22:05
  5. Pudovkin, A.I.; Garfield, E.: Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals (2002) 0.01 
    0.012953828 = product of:
  0.045338396 = sum of:
    0.030225597 = weight(_text_:j in 5220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030225597 = score(doc=5220,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031287372 = queryNorm
        0.304033 = fieldWeight in 5220, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5220)
    0.015112799 = product of:
      0.030225597 = sum of:
        0.030225597 = weight(_text_:j in 5220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030225597 = score(doc=5220,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031287372 = queryNorm
            0.304033 = fieldWeight in 5220, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5220)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Journal Citation Reports provides a classification of journals most heavily cited by a given journal and which most heavily cite that journal, but size variation is not taken into account. Pudovkin and Garfield suggest a procedure for meeting this difficulty. The relatedness of journal i to journal j is determined by the number of citations from journal i to journal j in a given year normalized by the product of the papers published in the j journal in that year times the number of references cited in the i journal in that year. A multiplier of ten to the sixth is suggested to bring the values into an easily perceptible range. While citations received depend upon the overall cumulative number of papers published by a journal, the current year is utilized since that data is available in JCR. Citations to current year papers would be quite low in most fields and thus not included. To produce the final index, the maximum of the A citing B value, and the B citing A value is chosen and used to indicate the closeness of the journals. The procedure is illustrated for the journal Genetics.
  6. Gorraiz, J.; Schlögl, C.: Zusammenhang von Zeitschriftennachfrage und -zitationshäufigkeiten : ¬Eine bibliometrische Analyse eines Dokumentlieferdienstes am Beispiel von Subito (2003) 0.01 
    0.008974676 = product of:
  0.031411365 = sum of:
    0.02094091 = weight(_text_:j in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02094091 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031287372 = queryNorm
        0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
    0.010470455 = product of:
      0.02094091 = sum of:
        0.02094091 = weight(_text_:j in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02094091 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031287372 = queryNorm
            0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
  7. Jacobs, N.; Woodfield, J.; Morris, A.: Using local citation data to relate the use of journal articles by academic researchers to the coverage of full-text document access systems (2000) 0.01 
    0.008974676 = product of:
  0.031411365 = sum of:
    0.02094091 = weight(_text_:j in 4541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02094091 = score(doc=4541,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031287372 = queryNorm
        0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 4541, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4541)
    0.010470455 = product of:
      0.02094091 = sum of:
        0.02094091 = weight(_text_:j in 4541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02094091 = score(doc=4541,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031287372 = queryNorm
            0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 4541, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4541)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
  8. Leydesdorff, L.; Bihui, J.: Mapping the Chinese Science Citation Database in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations (2005) 0.01 
    0.008974676 = product of:
  0.031411365 = sum of:
    0.02094091 = weight(_text_:j in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02094091 = score(doc=4813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031287372 = queryNorm
        0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
    0.010470455 = product of:
      0.02094091 = sum of:
        0.02094091 = weight(_text_:j in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02094091 = score(doc=4813,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031287372 = queryNorm
            0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
  9. Gorraiz, J.: "Web of Science" versus "Scopus" oder das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliotheken (2006) 0.01 
    0.008974676 = product of:
  0.031411365 = sum of:
    0.02094091 = weight(_text_:j in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02094091 = score(doc=5021,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031287372 = queryNorm
        0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 5021, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5021)
    0.010470455 = product of:
      0.02094091 = sum of:
        0.02094091 = weight(_text_:j in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02094091 = score(doc=5021,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031287372 = queryNorm
            0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 5021, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
  10. Lin, X.; White, H.D.; Buzydlowski, J.: Real-time author co-citation mapping for online searching (2003) 0.01 
    0.008974676 = product of:
  0.031411365 = sum of:
    0.02094091 = weight(_text_:j in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02094091 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031287372 = queryNorm
        0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
    0.010470455 = product of:
      0.02094091 = sum of:
        0.02094091 = weight(_text_:j in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02094091 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031287372 = queryNorm
            0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
  11. Umstätter, W.: Szientometrische Verfahren (2004) 0.01 
    0.008461405 = product of:
  0.029614914 = sum of:
    0.019743277 = weight(_text_:j in 2920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019743277 = score(doc=2920,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031287372 = queryNorm
        0.19859353 = fieldWeight in 2920, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2920)
    0.009871638 = product of:
      0.019743277 = sum of:
        0.019743277 = weight(_text_:j in 2920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019743277 = score(doc=2920,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031287372 = queryNorm
            0.19859353 = fieldWeight in 2920, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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.
  12. Gabel, J.: Improving information retrieval of subjects through citation-analysis (2006) 0.01 
    0.007478895 = product of:
  0.026176132 = sum of:
    0.017450755 = weight(_text_:j in 61) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017450755 = score(doc=61,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031287372 = queryNorm
        0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 61, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=61)
    0.008725378 = product of:
      0.017450755 = sum of:
        0.017450755 = weight(_text_:j in 61) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017450755 = score(doc=61,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031287372 = queryNorm
            0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 61, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=61)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
  13. Gabel, J.: Improving information retrieval of subjects through citation-analysis : a study (2006) 0.01 
    0.007478895 = product of:
  0.026176132 = sum of:
    0.017450755 = weight(_text_:j in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017450755 = score(doc=225,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031287372 = queryNorm
        0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
    0.008725378 = product of:
      0.017450755 = sum of:
        0.017450755 = weight(_text_:j in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017450755 = score(doc=225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031287372 = queryNorm
            0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
  14. Lai, K.-K.; Wu, S.-J.: Using the patent co-citation approach to establish a new patent classification system (2005) 0.01 
    0.007478895 = product of:
  0.026176132 = sum of:
    0.017450755 = weight(_text_:j in 1013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017450755 = score(doc=1013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031287372 = queryNorm
        0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 1013, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1013)
    0.008725378 = product of:
      0.017450755 = sum of:
        0.017450755 = weight(_text_:j in 1013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017450755 = score(doc=1013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031287372 = queryNorm
            0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 1013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
  15. De Bellis, N.: Bibliometrics and citation analysis : from the Science citation index to cybermetrics (2008) 0.01 
    0.0059831166 = product of:
  0.020940907 = sum of:
    0.013960605 = weight(_text_:j in 3585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013960605 = score(doc=3585,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031287372 = queryNorm
        0.14042683 = fieldWeight in 3585, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3585)
    0.0069803023 = product of:
      0.013960605 = sum of:
        0.013960605 = weight(_text_:j in 3585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013960605 = score(doc=3585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09941551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031287372 = queryNorm
            0.14042683 = fieldWeight in 3585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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."
  16. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.00 
    0.004282044 = product of:
  0.029974306 = sum of:
    0.029974306 = product of:
      0.059948612 = sum of:
        0.059948612 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059948612 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109563045 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031287372 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  17. Rousseau, R.; Zuccala, A.: ¬A classification of author co-citations : definitions and search strategies (2004) 0.00 
    0.0039423886 = product of:
  0.02759672 = sum of:
    0.02759672 = product of:
      0.11038688 = sum of:
        0.11038688 = weight(_text_:author's in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11038688 = score(doc=2266,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21025594 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031287372 = queryNorm
            0.52501196 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    The term author co-citation is defined and classified according to four distinct forms: the pure first-author co-citation, the pure author co-citation, the general author co-citation, and the special co-authorlco-citation. Each form can be used to obtain one count in an author co-citation study, based an a binary counting rule, which either recognizes the co-citedness of two authors in a given reference list (1) or does not (0). Most studies using author co-citations have relied solely an first-author cocitation counts as evidence of an author's oeuvre or body of work contributed to a research field. In this article, we argue that an author's contribution to a selected field of study should not be limited, but should be based an his/her complete list of publications, regardless of author ranking. We discuss the implications associated with using each co-citation form and show where simple first-author co-citations fit within our classification scheme. Examples are given to substantiate each author co-citation form defined in our classification, including a set of sample Dialog(TM) searches using references extracted from the SciSearch database.
  18. Hyland, K.: Self-citation and self-reference : credibility and promotion in academic publication (2003) 0.00 
    0.0039423886 = product of:
  0.02759672 = sum of:
    0.02759672 = product of:
      0.11038688 = sum of:
        0.11038688 = weight(_text_:author's in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11038688 = score(doc=5156,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21025594 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031287372 = queryNorm
            0.52501196 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Hyland examines self referencing practices by analyzing their textual uses in 240 randomly chosen research papers and 800 abstracts across 80 expert selected journals from 1997 and 1998 in eight disciplines, as a key to their author's assumptions as to their own role in the research process and to the practices of their disciplines. Scanned texts produced a corpus of nearly 1.5 million words which was searched using WordPilot for first person pronouns and all mentions of an author's previous work. There were 6,689 instances of self reference in the papers and 459 in the abstracts; on the average 28 cases per paper, 17% of which were self citations. There was one self mention in every two abstracts. Nearly 70% of self reference and mention occurred in humanities and social science papers, but biologists employed the most self citation overall and 12% of hard science citations were found to be self citations. Interviews indicated that self citation was deemed important in establishing authority by fitting oneself into the research framework. Self mention arises in four main contexts: stating the goal or the structure of the paper, explaining a procedure, stating results or a claim, and elaborating an argument.
  19. White, H.D.: Authors as citers over time (2001) 0.00 
    0.0038627367 = product of:
  0.027039155 = sum of:
    0.027039155 = product of:
      0.10815662 = sum of:
        0.10815662 = weight(_text_:author's in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10815662 = score(doc=5581,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21025594 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031287372 = queryNorm
            0.5144046 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    This study explores the tendency of authors to recite themselves and others in multiple works over time, using the insights gained to build citation theory. The set of all authors whom an author cites is defined as that author's citation identity. The study explains how to retrieve citation identities from the Institute for Scientific Information's files on Dialog and how to deal with idiosyncrasies of these files. As the author's oeuvre grows, the identity takes the form of a core-and-scatter distribution that may be divided into authors cited only once (unicitations) and authors cited at least twice (recitations). The latter group, especially those recited most frequently, are interpretable as symbols of a citer's main substantive concerns. As illustrated by the top recitees of eight information scientists, identities are intelligible, individualized, and wide-ranging. They are ego-centered without being egotistical. They are often affected by social ties between citers and citees, but the universal motivator seems to be the perceived relevance of the citees' works. Citing styles in identities differ: "scientific-paper style" authors recite heavily, adding to core; "bibliographic-essay style" authors are heavy on unicitations, adding to scatter; "literature-review style" authors do both at once. Identities distill aspects of citers' intellectual lives, such as orienting figures, interdisciplinary interests, bidisciplinary careers, and conduct in controversies. They can also be related to past schemes for classifying citations in categories such as positive-negative and perfunctory- organic; indeed, one author's frequent recitation of another, whether positive or negative, may be the readiest indicator of an organic relation between them. The shape of the core-and-scatter distribution of names in identities can be explained by the principle of least effort. Citers economize on effort by frequently reciting only a relatively small core of names in their identities. They also economize by frequent use of perfunctory citations, which require relatively little context, and infrequent use of negative citations, which require contexts more laborious to set
  20. Chen, C.: Mapping scientific frontiers : the quest for knowledge visualization (2003) 0.00 
    0.0031539113 = product of:
  0.022077378 = sum of:
    0.022077378 = product of:
      0.08830951 = sum of:
        0.08830951 = weight(_text_:author's in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08830951 = score(doc=2213,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21025594 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031287372 = queryNorm
            0.42000958 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: JASIST 55(2004) no.4, S.363-365 (J.W. Schneider): "Theories and methods for mapping scientific frontiers have existed for decades-especially within quantitative studies of science. This book investigates mapping scientific frontiers from the perspective of visual thinking and visual exploration (visual communication). The central theme is construction of visual-spatial representations that may convey insights into the dynamic structure of scientific frontiers. The author's previous book, Information Visualisation and Virtual Environments (1999), also concerns some of the ideas behind and possible benefits of visual communication. This new book takes a special focus an knowledge visualization, particularly in relation to science literature. The book is not a technical tutorial as the focus is an principles of visual communication and ways that may reveal the dynamics of scientific frontiers. The new approach to science mapping presented is the culmination of different approaches from several disciplines, such as philosophy of science, information retrieval, scientometrics, domain analysis, and information visualization. The book therefore addresses an audience with different disciplinary backgrounds and tries to stimulate interdisciplinary research. Chapter 1, The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, introduces a range of examples that illustrate fundamental issues concerning visual communication in general and science mapping in particular. Chapter 2, Mapping the Universe, focuses an the basic principles of cartography for visual communication. Chapter 3, Mapping the Mind, turns the attention inward and explores the design of mind maps, maps that represent our thoughts, experience, and knowledge. Chapter 4, Enabling Techniques for Science Mapping, essentially outlines the author's basic approach to science mapping.

Authors

Languages

  • e 25
  • d 8

Types

  • a 31
  • m 2
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications