Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Robinson-García, N.; Jiménez-Contreras, E.; Torres-Salinas, D.: Analyzing data citation practices using the data citation index : a study of backup strategies of end users (2016) 0.03
    0.030565115 = product of:
      0.12226046 = sum of:
        0.12226046 = weight(_text_:fields in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12226046 = score(doc=3225,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06382575 = queryNorm
            0.38684773 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    We present an analysis of data citation practices based on the Data Citation Index (DCI) (Thomson Reuters). This database launched in 2012 links data sets and data studies with citations received from the other citation indexes. The DCI harvests citations to research data from papers indexed in the Web of Science. It relies on the information provided by the data repository. The findings of this study show that data citation practices are far from common in most research fields. Some differences have been reported on the way researchers cite data: Although in the areas of science and engineering & technology data sets were the most cited, in the social sciences and arts & humanities data studies play a greater role. A total of 88.1% of the records have received no citation, but some repositories show very low uncitedness rates. Although data citation practices are rare in most fields, they have expanded in disciplines such as crystallography and genomics. We conclude by emphasizing the role that the DCI could play in encouraging the consistent, standardized citation of research data-a role that would enhance their value as a means of following the research process from data collection to publication.
  2. Hellqvist, B.: Referencing in the humanities and its implications for citation analysis (2010) 0.03
    0.03025792 = product of:
      0.12103168 = sum of:
        0.12103168 = weight(_text_:fields in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12103168 = score(doc=3329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06382575 = queryNorm
            0.38295972 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This article studies citation practices in the arts and humanities from a theoretical and conceptual viewpoint, drawing on studies from fields like linguistics, history, library & information science, and the sociology of science. The use of references in the humanities is discussed in connection with the growing interest in the possibilities of applying citation analysis to humanistic disciplines. The study shows how the use of references within the humanities is connected to concepts of originality, to intellectual organization, and to searching and writing. Finally, it is acknowledged that the use of references is connected to stylistic, epistemological, and organizational differences, and these differences must be taken into account when applying citation analysis to humanistic disciplines.
  3. Gorraiz, J.; Purnell, P.J.; Glänzel, W.: Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index (2013) 0.02
    0.0216128 = product of:
      0.0864512 = sum of:
        0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0864512 = score(doc=966,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06382575 = queryNorm
            0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 966, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=966)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This article offers important background information about a new product, the Book Citation Index (BKCI), launched in 2011 by Thomson Reuters. Information is illustrated by some new facts concerning The BKCI's use in bibliometrics, coverage analysis, and a series of idiosyncrasies worthy of further discussion. The BKCI was launched primarily to assist researchers identify useful and relevant research that was previously invisible to them, owing to the lack of significant book content in citation indexes such as the Web of Science. So far, the content of 33,000 books has been added to the desktops of the global research community, the majority in the arts, humanities, and social sciences fields. Initial analyses of the data from The BKCI have indicated that The BKCI, in its current version, should not be used for bibliometric or evaluative purposes. The most significant limitations to this potential application are the high share of publications without address information, the inflation of publication counts, the lack of cumulative citation counts from different hierarchical levels, and inconsistency in citation counts between the cited reference search and the book citation index. However, The BKCI is a first step toward creating a reliable and necessary citation data source for monographs - a very challenging issue, because, unlike journals and conference proceedings, books have specific requirements, and several problems emerge not only in the context of subject classification, but also in their role as cited publications and in citing publications.
  4. Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013) 0.02
    0.017295016 = product of:
      0.069180064 = sum of:
        0.069180064 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069180064 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06382575 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    17.12.2013 11:02:22
  5. Ding, Y.; Zhang, G.; Chambers, T.; Song, M.; Wang, X.; Zhai, C.: Content-based citation analysis : the next generation of citation analysis (2014) 0.01
    0.0129712615 = product of:
      0.051885046 = sum of:
        0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051885046 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06382575 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1521, 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=1521)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    22. 8.2014 16:52:04