Search (108 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.08 
    0.08281523 = product of:
  0.11042031 = sum of:
    0.023211608 = weight(_text_:science in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023211608 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
    0.066697344 = weight(_text_:research in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066697344 = score(doc=201,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.46326676 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
    0.020511357 = product of:
      0.041022714 = sum of:
        0.041022714 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041022714 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.9, S.1263-1274
  2. Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001) 0.08 
    0.07695111 = product of:
  0.102601476 = sum of:
    0.046904307 = weight(_text_:science in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046904307 = score(doc=6920,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
    0.031767257 = weight(_text_:research in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031767257 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
    0.023929918 = product of:
      0.047859836 = sum of:
        0.047859836 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047859836 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Over a 35-year period, Irving H. Sher played a critical role in the development and implementation of the Science Citation Index and other ISI products. Trained as a biochemist, statistician, and linguist, Sher brought a unique combination of talents to ISI as Director of Quality Control and Director of Research and Development. His talents as a teacher and mentor evoked loyalty. He was a particularly inventive but self-taught programmer. In addition to the SCI, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index,
    Date
    16.12.2001 14:01:22
    Object
    Science Citation Index
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.14, S.1197-1202
  3. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.07 
    0.074417084 = product of:
  0.09922278 = sum of:
    0.04020369 = weight(_text_:science in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04020369 = score(doc=994,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.03850773 = weight(_text_:research in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03850773 = score(doc=994,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2674672 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.020511357 = product of:
      0.041022714 = sum of:
        0.041022714 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041022714 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Citation rates are becoming increasingly important in judging the research quality of journals, institutions and departments, and individual faculty. This paper looks at the pattern of citations across different management science journals and over time. A stochastic model is proposed which views the generating mechanism of citations as a gamma mixture of Poisson processes generating overall a negative binomial distribution. This is tested empirically with a large sample of papers published in 1990 from six management science journals and found to fit well. The model is extended to include obsolescence, i.e., that the citation rate for a paper varies over its cited lifetime. This leads to the additional citations distribution which shows that future citations are a linear function of past citations with a time-dependent and decreasing slope. This is also verified empirically in a way that allows different obsolescence functions to be fitted to the data. Conclusions concerning the predictability of future citations, and future research in this area are discussed.
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
  4. Ma, N.; Guan, J.; Zhao, Y.: Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis (2008) 0.07 
    0.06729874 = product of:
  0.13459748 = sum of:
    0.027229078 = weight(_text_:research in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027229078 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 2064, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2064)
    0.10736841 = sum of:
      0.0663457 = weight(_text_:network in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0663457 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = queryNorm
          0.29521978 = fieldWeight in 2064, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2064)
      0.041022714 = weight(_text_:22 in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041022714 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050463587 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The paper attempts to provide an alternative method for measuring the importance of scientific papers based on the Google's PageRank. The method is a meaningful extension of the common integer counting of citations and is then experimented for bringing PageRank to the citation analysis in a large citation network. It offers a more integrated picture of the publications' influence in a specific field. We firstly calculate the PageRanks of scientific papers. The distributional characteristics and comparison with the traditionally used number of citations are then analyzed in detail. Furthermore, the PageRank is implemented in the evaluation of research influence for several countries in the field of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology during the time period of 2000-2005. Finally, some advantages of bringing PageRank to the citation analysis are concluded.
    Date
    31. 7.2008 14:22:05
  5. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.07 
    0.06679702 = product of:
  0.08906269 = sum of:
    0.032826174 = weight(_text_:science in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032826174 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.027229078 = weight(_text_:research in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027229078 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.029007442 = product of:
      0.058014885 = sum of:
        0.058014885 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058014885 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20%, 50%, and 80% of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.858-862
  6. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.06 
    0.05829729 = product of:
  0.11659458 = sum of:
    0.061897624 = weight(_text_:science in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061897624 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.4656509 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
    0.054696955 = product of:
      0.10939391 = sum of:
        0.10939391 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10939391 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx
  7. Aström, F.: Changes in the LIS research front : time-sliced cocitation analyses of LIS journal articles, 1990-2004 (2007) 0.05 
    0.054584168 = product of:
  0.109168336 = sum of:
    0.027355144 = weight(_text_:science in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027355144 = score(doc=329,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 329, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=329)
    0.081813194 = weight(_text_:research in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081813194 = score(doc=329,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.5682585 = fieldWeight in 329, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=329)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Based on articles published in 1990-2004 in 21 library and information science (LIS) journals, a set of cocitation analyses was performed to study changes in research fronts over the last 15 years, where LIS is at now, and to discuss where it is heading. To study research fronts, here defined as current and influential cocited articles, a citations among documents methodology was applied; and to study changes, the analyses were time-sliced into three 5-year periods. The results show a stable structure of two distinct research fields: informetrics and information seeking and retrieval (ISR). However, experimental retrieval research and user oriented research have merged into one ISR field; and IR and informetrics also show signs of coming closer together, sharing research interests and methodologies, making informetrics research more visible in mainstream LIS research. Furthermore, the focus on the Internet, both in ISR research and in informetrics-where webometrics quickly has become a dominating research area-is an important change. The future is discussed in terms of LIS dependency on technology, how integration of research areas as well as technical systems can be expected to continue to characterize LIS research, and how webometrics will continue to develop and find applications.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.7, S.947-957
  8. Kostoff, R.N.; Rio, J.A. del; Humenik, J.A.; Garcia, E.O.; Ramirez, A.M.: Citation mining : integrating text mining and bibliometrics for research user profiling (2001) 0.05 
    0.048364844 = product of:
  0.09672969 = sum of:
    0.021884115 = weight(_text_:science in 6850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021884115 = score(doc=6850,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.16463245 = fieldWeight in 6850, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6850)
    0.074845575 = weight(_text_:research in 6850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074845575 = score(doc=6850,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.5198628 = fieldWeight in 6850, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6850)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Identifying the users and impact of research is important for research performers, managers, evaluators, and sponsors. It is important to know whether the audience reached is the audience desired. It is useful to understand the technical characteristics of the other research/development/applications impacted by the originating research, and to understand other characteristics (names, organizations, countries) of the users impacted by the research. Because of the many indirect pathways through which fundamental research can impact applications, identifying the user audience and the research impacts can be very complex and time consuming. The purpose of this article is to describe a novel approach for identifying the pathways through which research can impact other research, technology development, and applications, and to identify the technical and infrastructure characteristics of the user population. A novel literature-based approach was developed to identify the user community and its characteristics. The research performed is characterized by one or more articles accessed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) database, beccause the SCI's citation-based structure enables the capability to perform citation studies easily. The user community is characterized by the articles in the SCI that cite the original research articles, and that cite the succeeding generations of these articles as well. Text mining is performed on the citing articles to identify the technical areas impacted by the research, the relationships among these technical areas, and relationships among the technical areas and the infrastructure (authors, journals, organizations). A key component of text mining, concept clustering, was used to provide both a taxonomy of the citing articles' technical themes and further technical insights based on theme relationships arising from the grouping process. Bibliometrics is performed on the citing articles to profile the user characteristics. Citation Mining, this integration of citation bibliometrics and text mining, is applied to the 307 first generation citing articles of a fundamental physics article on the dynamics of vibrating sand-piles. Most of the 307 citing articles were basic research whose main themes were aligned with those of the cited article. However, about 20% of the citing articles were research or development in other disciplines, or development within the same discipline. The text mining alone identified the intradiscipline applications and extradiscipline impacts and applications; this was confirmed by detailed reading of the 307 abstracts. The combination of citation bibliometrics and text mining provides a synergy unavailable with each approach taken independently. Furthermore, text mining is a REQUIREMENT for a feasible comprehensive research impact determination. The integrated multigeneration citation analysis required for broad research impact determination of highly cited articles will produce thousands or tens or hundreds of thousands of citing article Abstracts.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.13, S.1148-1156
  9. Zhao, D.; Strotmann, A.: Can citation analysis of Web publications better detect research fronts? (2007) 0.05 
    0.04713357 = product of:
  0.09426714 = sum of:
    0.038686015 = weight(_text_:science in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038686015 = score(doc=471,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
    0.055581123 = weight(_text_:research in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055581123 = score(doc=471,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.38605565 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
    Object
    Science Citation Index
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.9, S.1285-1302
  10. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.05 
    0.046863765 = product of:
  0.09372753 = sum of:
    0.0453818 = weight(_text_:research in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0453818 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.31521314 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
    0.048345733 = product of:
      0.09669147 = sum of:
        0.09669147 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09669147 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
    Source
    Information Research. 6(2001), no.2
  11. 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) 0.05 
    0.04554896 = product of:
  0.09109792 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
    0.07175492 = weight(_text_:research in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07175492 = score(doc=444,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.4983957 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.8, S.1100-1107
  12. Joint, N.: Bemused by bibliometrics : using citation analysis to evaluate research quality (2008) 0.05 
    0.04554896 = product of:
  0.09109792 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=1900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
    0.07175492 = weight(_text_:research in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07175492 = score(doc=1900,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.4983957 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the way in which library and information science (LIS) issues have been handled in the formulation of recent UK Higher Education policy concerned with research quality evaluation. Design/methodology/approach - A chronological review of decision making about digital rights arrangements for the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and of recent announcements about the new shape of metrics-based assessment in the Research Excellence Framework, which supersedes the RAE. Against this chronological framework, the likely nature of LIS practitioner reactions to the flow of decision making is suggested. Findings - It was found that a weak grasp of LIS issues by decision makers undermines the process whereby effective research evaluation models are created. LIS professional opinion should be sampled before key decisions are made. Research limitations/implications - This paper makes no sophisticated comments on the complex research issues underlying advanced bibliometric research evaluation models. It does point out that sophisticated and expensive bibliometric consultancies arrive at many conclusions about metrics-based research assessment that are common knowledge amongst LIS practitioners. Practical implications - Practical difficulties arise when one announces a decision to move to a new and specific type of research evaluation indicator before one has worked out anything very specific about that indicator. Originality/value - In this paper, the importance of information management issues to the mainstream issues of government and public administration is underlined. The most valuable conclusion of this paper is that, because LIS issues are now at the heart of democratic decision making, LIS practitioners and professionals should be given some sort of role in advising on such matters.
  13. Morris, S.A.; Yen, G.; Wu, Z.; Asnake, B.: Time line visualization of research fronts (2003) 0.05 
    0.04530736 = product of:
  0.09061472 = sum of:
    0.027080212 = weight(_text_:science in 1452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027080212 = score(doc=1452,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 1452, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1452)
    0.06353451 = weight(_text_:research in 1452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06353451 = score(doc=1452,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.44129837 = fieldWeight in 1452, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1452)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Research fronts, defined as clusters of documents that tend to cite a fixed, time invariant set of base documents, are plotted as time lines for visualization and exploration. Using a set of documents related to the subject of anthrax research, this article illustrates the construction, exploration, and interpretation of time lines for the purpose of identifying and visualizing temporal changes in research activity through journal articles. Such information is useful for presentation to meinbers of expert panels used for technology forecasting.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.5, S.413-422
  14. Thelwall, M.; Harries, G.: ¬The connection between the research of a university and counts of links to its Web pages : an investigation based upon a classification of the relationships of pages to the research of the host university (2003) 0.05 
    0.04530736 = product of:
  0.09061472 = sum of:
    0.027080212 = weight(_text_:science in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027080212 = score(doc=1676,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 1676, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1676)
    0.06353451 = weight(_text_:research in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06353451 = score(doc=1676,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.44129837 = fieldWeight in 1676, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1676)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Results from recent advances in link metrics have demonstrated that the hyperlink structure of national university systems can be strongly related to the research productivity of the individual institutions. This paper uses a page categorization to show that restricting the metrics to subsets more closely related to the research of the host university can produce even stronger associations. A partial overlap was also found between the effects of applying advanced document models and separating page types, but the best results were achieved through a combination of the two.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.7, S.594-602
  15. Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.04 
    0.044447944 = product of:
  0.08889589 = sum of:
    0.054710288 = weight(_text_:science in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054710288 = score(doc=613,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.41158113 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
    0.034185596 = product of:
      0.06837119 = sum of:
        0.06837119 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06837119 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Content
    Abschnitte zu: The origins of citation indexing in science - Citation analysis in sociology, history and philosophy of science - From ASIS to ASIST
    Source
    Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
  16. White, H.D.; Wellman, B.; Nazer, N.: Does Citation Reflect Social Structure? : Longitudinal Evidence From the "Globenet" Interdisciplinary Research Group (2004) 0.04 
    0.041806772 = product of:
  0.05574236 = sum of:
    0.015474406 = weight(_text_:science in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015474406 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
    0.01815272 = weight(_text_:research in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01815272 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.12608525 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
    0.022115234 = product of:
      0.04423047 = sum of:
        0.04423047 = weight(_text_:network in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04423047 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.1968132 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    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
  17. Leydesdorff, L.: Clusters and maps of science journals based on bi-connected graphs in Journal Citation Reports (2004) 0.04 
    0.039869837 = product of:
  0.079739675 = sum of:
    0.032826174 = weight(_text_:science in 4427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032826174 = score(doc=4427,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4427, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4427)
    0.046913497 = product of:
      0.093826994 = sum of:
        0.093826994 = weight(_text_:network in 4427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.093826994 = score(doc=4427,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.41750383 = fieldWeight in 4427, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4427)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix derived from Journal Citation Reports 2001 can be decomposed into a unique subject classification using the graph-analytical algorithm of bi-connected components. This technique was recently incorporated in software tools for social network analysis. The matrix can be assessed in terms of its decomposability using articulation points which indicate overlap between the components. The articulation points of this set did not exhibit a next-order network of "general science" journals. However, the clusters differ in size and in terms of the internal density of their relations. A full classification of the journals is provided in the Appendix. The clusters can also be extracted and mapped for the visualization.
  18. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google book search : citation analysis for social science and the humanities (2009) 0.04 
    0.03973514 = product of:
  0.07947028 = sum of:
    0.0473805 = weight(_text_:science in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0473805 = score(doc=2946,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.3564397 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
    0.032089777 = weight(_text_:research in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032089777 = score(doc=2946,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.22288933 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%-5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1537-1549
  19. Wilson, C.S.; Tenopir, C.: Local citation analysis, publishing and reading patterns : using multiple methods to evaluate faculty use of an academic library's research collection (2008) 0.04 
    0.039442435 = product of:
  0.07888487 = sum of:
    0.033503074 = weight(_text_:science in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033503074 = score(doc=1960,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
    0.0453818 = weight(_text_:research in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0453818 = score(doc=1960,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.31521314 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This study assessed the intermix of local citation analysis and survey of journal use and reading patterns for evaluating an academic library's research collection. Journal articles and their cited references from faculties at the University of New South Wales were downloaded from the Web of Science (WoS) and journal impact factors from the Journal Citation Reports. The survey of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) academic staff asked both reader-related and reading-related questions. Both methods showed that academics in medicine published more and had more coauthors per paper than academics in the other faculties; however, when correlated with the number of students and academic staff, science published more and engineering published in higher impact journals. When recalled numbers of articles published were compared to actual numbers, all faculties over-estimated their productivity by nearly two-fold. The distribution of cited serial references was highly skewed with over half of the titles cited only once. The survey results corresponded with U.S. university surveys with one exception: Engineering academics reported the highest number of article readings and read mostly for research related activities. Citation analysis data showed that the UNSW library provided the majority of journals in which researchers published and cited, mostly in electronic formats. However, the availability of non-journal cited sources was low. The joint methods provided both confirmatory and contradictory results and proved useful in evaluating library research collections.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1393-1408
  20. Steele, T.W.; Stier, J.C.: ¬The impact of interdisciplinary research in the environmental sciences : a forestry case study (2000) 0.04 
    0.03935571 = product of:
  0.07871142 = sum of:
    0.04020369 = weight(_text_:science in 4592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04020369 = score(doc=4592,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 4592, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4592)
    0.03850773 = weight(_text_:research in 4592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03850773 = score(doc=4592,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2674672 = fieldWeight in 4592, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4592)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Interdisciplinary research has been identified as a critical means of addressing some of our planet's most urgent environmental problems. Yet relatively little is known about the processes and impact of interdisciplinary approaches to environmental sciences. This study used citation analysis and ordinary least squares regression to investigate the relationship between an article's citation rate and its degree of interdisciplinarity in one area of environmental science; viz., forestry. 3 types of interdisciplinarity were recognized - authorspip, subject matter, and cited literature - and each was quantified using Brillouin's diversity index. Data consisted of more than 750 articles published in the journal 'Forest Science' during the 10year period 1985-1994. The results indicate that borrowing was the most influencial method of interdisciplinary information transfer. Articles that drew information from a diverse set of journals were cited with greater frequency than articles having smaller or more narrowly focused bibliographies. This finding provides empirical evidence that interdisciplinary methods have made a measurable and positive impact on the forestry literature
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.5, S.476-484

Authors

Languages

  • e 94
  • d 14

Types

  • a 106
  • el 3
  • m 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications