Search (239 results, page 12 of 12)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Hauffe, H.: ¬The role of citation analysis in the history and evaluation of science : Bericht über einen Vortrag von Eugene Garfield (Wien, 26. Mai 2004) (2004) 0.00 
    0.0019722506 = product of:
  0.015778005 = sum of:
    0.015778005 = weight(_text_:of in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015778005 = score(doc=2492,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
  2. Peritz, B.C.: ¬A classification of citation roles for the social sciences and related fields (1983) 0.00 
    0.0019524286 = product of:
  0.015619429 = sum of:
    0.015619429 = weight(_text_:of in 3073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015619429 = score(doc=3073,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 3073, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3073)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
  3. Garfield, E.; Sher, I.H.: New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature literature through citation indexing (1963) 0.00 
    0.0019524286 = product of:
  0.015619429 = sum of:
    0.015619429 = weight(_text_:of in 8242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015619429 = score(doc=8242,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 8242, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8242)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
  4. Smith, A.G.: Web links as analogues of citations (2004) 0.00 
    0.0019524286 = product of:
  0.015619429 = sum of:
    0.015619429 = weight(_text_:of in 4205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015619429 = score(doc=4205,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 4205, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4205)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
  5. Frohlich, C.; Resler, L.: Analysis of publications and citations from a geophysics research institute (2001) 0.00 
    0.0019324032 = product of:
  0.0154592255 = sum of:
    0.0154592255 = weight(_text_:of in 5797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0154592255 = score(doc=5797,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 5797, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5797)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    We here perform an analysis of all 1128 publications produced by scientists during their employment at the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics, a geophysical research laboratory founded in 1972 that currently employs 23 Ph.D.-level scientists. We thus assess research performance using as bibliometric indicators such statistics as publications per year, citations per paper, and cited half-lives. To characterize the research style of individual scientists and to obtain insight into the origin of certain publication-counting discrepancies, we classified the 1128 publications into four categories that differed significantly with respect to statistics such as lifetime citation rates, fraction of papers never-cited after 10 years, and cited half-life. The categories were: mainstream (prestige journal) publications -32.6 lifetime cit/pap, 2.4% never cited, and 6.9 year half-life; archival (other refereed)-12.0 lifetime cit/pap. 21.5% never cited, and 9.5 years half-life; articles published as proceedings of conferences-5.4 lifetime cit/pap, 26.6% never cited, and 5.4 years half-life; and "other" publications (news articles, book reviews, etc.)-4.2 lifetime cit/pap, 57.1% never cited, and 1.9 years half-life. Because determining cited half-lives is highly similar to a well-studied phenomenon in earthquake seismology, which was familiar to us, we thoroughly evaluate five different methods for determining the cited half-life and discuss the robustness and limitations of the various methods. Unfortunately, even when data are numerous the various methods often obtain very different values for the half-life. Our preferred method determines halflife from the ratio of citations appearing in back-to-back 5-year periods. We also evaluate the reliability of the citation count data used for these kinds of analysis and conclude that citation count data are often imprecise. All observations suggest that reported differences in cited half-lives must be quite large to be significant
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.9, S.701-713
  6. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google book search : citation analysis for social science and the humanities (2009) 0.00 
    0.0018448716 = product of:
  0.014758972 = sum of:
    0.014758972 = weight(_text_:of in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014758972 = score(doc=2946,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    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
  7. Raan, A.F.J. van: Self-citation as an impact-reinforcing mechanism in the science system (2008) 0.00 
    0.0017080192 = product of:
  0.013664153 = sum of:
    0.013664153 = weight(_text_:of in 2006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013664153 = score(doc=2006,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 2006, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2006)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Previous research has demonstrated that lower performance groups have a larger size-dependent cumulative advantage for receiving citations than do top-performance groups. Furthermore, regardless of performance, larger groups have less not-cited publications. Particularly for the lower performance groups, the fraction of not-cited publications decreases considerably with size. These phenomena can be explained with a model in which self-citation acts as a promotion mechanism for external citations. In this article, we show that for self-citations, similar size-dependent scaling rules apply as for citations, but generally the power law exponents are higher for self-citations as compared to citations. We also find that the fraction of self-citations is smaller for the higher performance groups, and this fraction decreases more rapidly with increasing journal impact than that for lower performance groups. An interesting novel finding is that the variance in the correlation of the number of self-citations with size is considerably less than the variance for external citations. This is a clear indication that size is a stronger determinant for self-citations than it is for external citations. Both higher and particularly lower performance groups have a size-dependent cumulative advantage for self-citations, but for the higher performance groups only in the lower impact journals and in fields with low citation density.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.10, S.1631-1643
  8. Pipp, E.: Inhaltlicher Vergleich von Web of Science und Scopus an Hand der erfassten Zeitschriften (2006) 0.00 
    0.0016908528 = product of:
  0.013526822 = sum of:
    0.013526822 = weight(_text_:of in 5940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013526822 = score(doc=5940,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 5940, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5940)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Bibliographische Datenbanken sind immer noch von Bedeutung, obwohl diee-Zeitschriften-Plattformen der Verlage (z.B. ScienceDirect) und die Institutional Repositories (Publikationsdatenbanken einzelner wissenschaftlicher Institutionen) auch Suchmöglichkeiten anbieten. Nur in bibliographischen Datenbanken kann verlags- und institutionsübergreifend nach Fachliteratur zu einem Thema bzw. nach wissenschaftlichen Publikationen eines Autors / einer Autorin gesucht werden. Ein wichtiger Ansatzpunktzur Bewertung des Inhaltes einer bibliographischen Datenbank - und erst recht für einen inhaltlichen Vergleich zwischen zwei Konkurrenzdatenbanken - ist daher eine Analyse der darin enthaltenen Zeitschriften hinsichtlich der Anzahl der erfassten Zeitschriften, aber auch hinsichtlich der Wissenschaftlichkeit, der fachlichen Ausrichtung, der Vollständigkeit und der Aktualität derselben. Im Folgenden soll ein solcher Vergleich für das Web of Science und für Scopus versucht werden.
    Object
    Web of Science
  9. Bradshaw, S.; Hammond, K.: Using citations in facilitate precise indexing and automatic index creation in collections of research papers (2001) 0.00 
    0.0016735102 = product of:
  0.013388081 = sum of:
    0.013388081 = weight(_text_:of in 3803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013388081 = score(doc=3803,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 3803, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3803)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
  10. Stock, W.G.: ¬Ein Netz wissenschaftlicher Informationen : gesponnen aus Fußnoten (1999) 0.00 
    0.0016735102 = product of:
  0.013388081 = sum of:
    0.013388081 = weight(_text_:of in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013388081 = score(doc=3890,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Das ISI in Philadelphia bündelt seine großen Zitationsdatenbanken und bietet sie (vorzugsweise als Intranet-, aber auch als Internetlösung) als 'Web of Science'an. Im derzeitigen entwicklungsstand geht 'Web of Science' bis in die 70er Jahre zurück und weist damit knapp 20 Mill. Quellenartikel mit darin enthaltenen rund 300 Mill. Zitationen in einer einzigen datenbank nach. Neben 'gewohnten' Suchstrategien etwa nach Sachthemen oder Namen werden zitationsanalytische Suchstrategien geboten: Recherchen nach zitierter Literatur, nach zitierenden Artikeln und nach (im Sinne gemeinsamer Fußnoten) 'verwandten' Artikeln. Die Ausgabefunktionen umfassen Document Delivery via ISI sowie Links zu Artikeln, die parallel zur Druckausgabe im WWW erscheinen. Durch die Multidisziplinarität der ISI-Datenbanken sind als Kundenkreis vor allem Einrichtungen angesprochen, die mehrere Wissenschaftsfächer berühren. Hochschulbibliotheken oder Bibliotheken großer Forschungseinrichtungen dürften am 'Web of Science' kaum vorbeikommen. Parallele Produkte bei Online-Archiven, auf CD-ROM oder als Druckausgabe verlieren an Bedeutung
    Object
    Web of Science
  11. White, H.D.; Wellman, B.; Nazer, N.: Does Citation Reflect Social Structure? : Longitudinal Evidence From the "Globenet" Interdisciplinary Research Group (2004) 0.00 
    0.0016735101 = product of:
  0.0133880805 = sum of:
    0.0133880805 = weight(_text_:of in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0133880805 = score(doc=2095,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20732687 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    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
  12. Burrell, Q.L.: Will this paper ever be cited? (2002) 0.00 
    0.0015778005 = product of:
  0.012622404 = sum of:
    0.012622404 = weight(_text_:of in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012622404 = score(doc=3183,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 3183, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3183)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    A recently proposed stochastic model to describe the citation process in the presence of obsolescence is used to answer the question: If a paper has not been cited by time t after its publication, what is the probability that it will ever be cited?
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.3, S.232-235
  13. Castro, R. de; Grossmann, J.W.: Famous trails to Paul Erdös (1999) 0.00 
    0.0015778005 = product of:
  0.012622404 = sum of:
    0.012622404 = weight(_text_:of in 3991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012622404 = score(doc=3991,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 3991, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3991)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    The notion of Erdös number has floated around the mathematical research community for more than 40 years, as a way to quantify the common knowledge that mathematical and scientific research has become a very collaborative process in the 20th century, not an activity engaged in solely by isolated individualists. In this paper we explore some (fairly short) collaboration paths that one can follow from Paul Erdös to researchers inside and outside of mathematics
  14. Garfield, E.: Essays of an information scientist (1977-) 0.00 
    0.0013945919 = product of:
  0.011156735 = sum of:
    0.011156735 = weight(_text_:of in 2015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011156735 = score(doc=2015,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 2015, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2015)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
  15. Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y.: Scholarly book reviewing in the social sciences and humanities : the flow of ides within and among disciplines (1998) 0.00 
    0.0013945919 = product of:
  0.011156735 = sum of:
    0.011156735 = weight(_text_:of in 4063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011156735 = score(doc=4063,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 4063, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4063)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
  16. Rousseau, R.: Timelines in citation research (2006) 0.00 
    0.0011156735 = product of:
  0.008925388 = sum of:
    0.008925388 = weight(_text_:of in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008925388 = score(doc=1746,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 1746, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1746)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.10, S.1404-1405
  17. Schneider, K.: Scopus contra ISI-WOS : Versuch einer vergleichenden Bewertung aus pharmakognostischer Sicht (2006) 0.00 
    8.367551E-4 = product of:
  0.0066940407 = sum of:
    0.0066940407 = weight(_text_:of in 39) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066940407 = score(doc=39,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.103663445 = fieldWeight in 39, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=39)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Object
    Web of Science
  18. Garfield, E.: Citation indexing : its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities (1979) 0.00 
    8.367551E-4 = product of:
  0.0066940407 = sum of:
    0.0066940407 = weight(_text_:of in 348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066940407 = score(doc=348,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.103663445 = fieldWeight in 348, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=348)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Journal of library automation 13(1980) S.289-290 (E. Svenonius)
  19. Umstätter, W.: Szientometrische Verfahren (2004) 0.00 
    5.578367E-4 = product of:
  0.004462694 = sum of:
    0.004462694 = weight(_text_:of in 2920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004462694 = score(doc=2920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.06910896 = fieldWeight in 2920, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2920)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    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.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 224
  • d 13
  • chi 2
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 231
  • el 5
  • m 5
  • s 3
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications