-
Sombatsompop, N.; Markpin, T.: Making an equality of ISI impact factors for different subject fields (2005)
0.04
0.03883488 = product of:
0.07766976 = sum of:
0.023211608 = weight(_text_:science in 3467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023211608 = score(doc=3467,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3467, 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=3467)
0.054458156 = weight(_text_:research in 3467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054458156 = score(doc=3467,freq=8.0), product of:
0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.37825575 = fieldWeight in 3467, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3467)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The journal impact factors, published by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI; Philadelphia, PA), are widely known and are used to evaluate overall journal quality and the quality of the papers published therein. However, when making comparisons between subject fields, the work of individual scientists and their research institutions as reflected in their articles' ISI impact factors can become meaningless. This inequality will remain as long as ISI impact factors are employed as an instrument to assess the quality of international research. Here we propose a new mathematical index entitled Impact Factor PointAverage (IFPA) for assessment of the quality of individual research work in different subject fields. The index is established based an a normalization of differences in impact factors, rankings, and number of journal titles in different subject fields. The proposed index is simple and enables the ISI impact factors to be used with equality, especially when evaluating the quality of research work in different subject fields.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.7, S.676-683
-
Persson, O.; Beckmann, M.: Locating the network of interacting authors in scientific specialities (1995)
0.04
0.03758964 = product of:
0.07517928 = sum of:
0.030948812 = weight(_text_:science in 3300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030948812 = score(doc=3300,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 3300, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3300)
0.04423047 = product of:
0.08846094 = sum of:
0.08846094 = weight(_text_:network in 3300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08846094 = score(doc=3300,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.3936264 = fieldWeight in 3300, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3300)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Seeks to describe the social networks, or invisible colleges, that make up a scientific speciality, in terms of mathematically precise sets generated by document citations and accessible through the Social Science Citation Index. The document and author sets that encompass a scientific specialty are the basis for some interdependent citation matrices. The method of construction of these sets and matrices is illustrated through an application to the literature on invisible colleges
-
Thelwall, M.: Extracting macroscopic information from Web links (2001)
0.04
0.037462063 = product of:
0.074924126 = sum of:
0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019343007 = score(doc=6851,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 6851, 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=6851)
0.055581123 = weight(_text_:research in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055581123 = score(doc=6851,freq=12.0), product of:
0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.38605565 = fieldWeight in 6851, 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=6851)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Much has been written about the potential and pitfalls of macroscopic Web-based link analysis, yet there have been no studies that have provided clear statistical evidence that any of the proposed calculations can produce results over large areas of the Web that correlate with phenomena external to the Internet. This article attempts to provide such evidence through an evaluation of Ingwersen's (1998) proposed external Web Impact Factor (WIF) for the original use of the Web: the interlinking of academic research. In particular, it studies the case of the relationship between academic hyperlinks and research activity for universities in Britain, a country chosen for its variety of institutions and the existence of an official government rating exercise for research. After reviewing the numerous reasons why link counts may be unreliable, it demonstrates that four different WIFs do, in fact, correlate with the conventional academic research measures. The WIF delivering the greatest correlation with research rankings was the ratio of Web pages with links pointing at research-based pages to faculty numbers. The scarcity of links to electronic academic papers in the data set suggests that, in contrast to citation analysis, this WIF is measuring the reputations of universities and their scholars, rather than the quality of their publications
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.13, S.1157-1168
-
Száva-Kováts, E.: Indirect-collective referencing (ICR) : life course, nature, and importance of a special kind of science referencing (1999)
0.04
0.03682615 = product of:
0.0736523 = sum of:
0.046423215 = weight(_text_:science in 4298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046423215 = score(doc=4298,freq=8.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 4298, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4298)
0.027229078 = weight(_text_:research in 4298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027229078 = score(doc=4298,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 4298, 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=4298)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Indirect collective referencing (ICR) is a special kind of indirect referencing, in an act making reference to all references cited in a directly cited paper. In this research the literature phenomenon of ICR is defined in the narrowest sense, taking into account only its indisputable minimum. To reveal the life course of this phenomenon, a longitudinal section was taken in the representative elite general physics journal, The Physical Review, processing more than 4.200 journal papers from 1897 to 1997 and their close to 84.00 formal references. This investigation showed that the ICR phenomenon has existed in the journal for a century now; that the frequency and intensity of the phenomenon have been constantly increasing in both absolute and relative terms since the last, mature period of the Little Science age; and that this growth has accelerated in the publication explosion of the Big Science age. It was shown that the Citation Indexes show only a fraction of the really cited references in the journal
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.14, S.1284-1294
-
Leydesdorff, L.: Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations (2008)
0.04
0.03682615 = product of:
0.0736523 = sum of:
0.046423215 = weight(_text_:science in 1361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046423215 = score(doc=1361,freq=8.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 1361, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1361)
0.027229078 = weight(_text_:research in 1361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027229078 = score(doc=1361,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 1361, 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=1361)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Aging of publications, percentage of self-citations, and impact vary from journal to journal within fields of science. The assumption that citation and publication practices are homogenous within specialties and fields of science is invalid. Furthermore, the delineation of fields and among specialties is fuzzy. Institutional units of analysis and persons may move between fields or span different specialties. The match between the citation index and institutional profiles varies among institutional units and nations. The respective matches may heavily affect the representation of the units. Non-Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) journals are increasingly cornered into transdisciplinary Mode-2 functions with the exception of specialist journals publishing in languages other than English. An externally cited impact factor can be calculated for these journals. The citation impact of non-ISI journals will be demonstrated using Science and Public Policy as the example.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.2, S.278-287
-
Hyland, K.: Self-citation and self-reference : credibility and promotion in academic publication (2003)
0.04
0.036402434 = product of:
0.07280487 = sum of:
0.033503074 = weight(_text_:science in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033503074 = score(doc=5156,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 5156, 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=5156)
0.03930179 = weight(_text_:research in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03930179 = score(doc=5156,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.2729826 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.3, S.251-259
-
Pair, C.I.: Formal evaluation methods : their utility and limitations (1995)
0.04
0.03600295 = product of:
0.0720059 = sum of:
0.027080212 = weight(_text_:science in 4259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027080212 = score(doc=4259,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 4259, 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=4259)
0.044925686 = weight(_text_:research in 4259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044925686 = score(doc=4259,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.31204507 = fieldWeight in 4259, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4259)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Discusses evaluation techniques as an integral part of science with the emphasis on evalution for policy purposes. Outlines early attempts to validate the use of biliometric indicators. Concludes that: best results are obtained by applying a variety of methods simultaneously; reliable results can be obtained from citation analysis for purely scientific subfields such as physics; and citation analysis tends to give unreliable results for technological subjects. Concludes that bibliometrics as a technique for determining policy should never be used on its own. Describes an evaluation method used for selecting research projects for financial support, as applied by STW, the technology branch of the Netherlands' research council, NWO
-
Maricic, S.: Citation context versus the frequency counts of citation histories (1998)
0.04
0.03600295 = product of:
0.0720059 = sum of:
0.027080212 = weight(_text_:science in 3003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027080212 = score(doc=3003,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 3003, 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=3003)
0.044925686 = weight(_text_:research in 3003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044925686 = score(doc=3003,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.31204507 = fieldWeight in 3003, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3003)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Analyzes 200 papers produced by a multidisciplinary natural sciences institute in a 10 years period for the context of the citation they received during the 21 year period since their publication. They were grouped in 28 research topics from physics, chemistry, to biology, and there were some half a dozen papers per topic on the average. 11% of all the citing papers comprised the sample of the context analysis: 1 citing per each cited paper. Sets of citing papers of each research topic were taken as units in the analysis
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.6, S.530-540
-
Brody, T.; Harnad, S.; Carr, L.: Earlier Web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact (2006)
0.04
0.03600295 = product of:
0.0720059 = sum of:
0.027080212 = weight(_text_:science in 165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027080212 = score(doc=165,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 165, 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=165)
0.044925686 = weight(_text_:research in 165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044925686 = score(doc=165,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.31204507 = fieldWeight in 165, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=165)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The use of citation counts to assess the impact of research articles is well established. However, the citation impact of an article can only be measured several years after it has been published. As research articles are increasingly accessed through the Web, the number of times an article is downloaded can be instantly recorded and counted. One would expect the number of times an article is read to be related both to the number of times it is cited and to how old the article is. The authors analyze how short-term Web usage impact predicts medium-term citation impact. The physics e-print archive-arXiv.org-is used to test this.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.8, S.1060-1072
-
Abt, H.A.; Garfield, E.: Is the relationship between numbers of references and paper lengths the same for all sciences? (2002)
0.04
0.03518688 = product of:
0.07037376 = sum of:
0.023211608 = weight(_text_:science in 5223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023211608 = score(doc=5223,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 5223, 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=5223)
0.04716215 = weight(_text_:research in 5223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04716215 = score(doc=5223,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.3275791 = fieldWeight in 5223, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5223)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- It has been shown in the physical sciences that a paper's length is related to its number of references in a linear manner. Abt and Garfield here look at the life and social sciences with the thought that if the relation holds the citation counts will provide a measure of relative importance across these disciplines. In the life sciences 200 research papers from 1999-2000 were scanned in each of 10 journals to produce counts of 1000 word normalized pages. In the social sciences an average of 70 research papers in nine journals were scanned for the two-year period. Papers of average length in the various sciences have the same average number of references within plus or minus 17%. A look at the 30 to 60 papers over the two years in 18 review journals indicates twice the references of research papers of the same length.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.13, S.1106-1112
-
Chen, C.; Cribbin, T.; Macredie, R.; Morar, S.: Visualizing and tracking the growth of competing paradigms : two case studies (2002)
0.04
0.03506255 = product of:
0.0701251 = sum of:
0.023211608 = weight(_text_:science in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023211608 = score(doc=602,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 602, 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=602)
0.046913497 = product of:
0.093826994 = sum of:
0.093826994 = weight(_text_:network in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.093826994 = score(doc=602,freq=4.0), product of:
0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.41750383 = fieldWeight in 602, 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=602)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- In this article we demonstrate the use of an integrative approach to visualizing and tracking the development of scientific paradigms. This approach is designed to reveal the long-term process of competing scientific paradigms. We assume that a cluster of highly cited and cocited scientific publications in a cocitation network represents the core of a predominant scientific paradigm. The growth of a paradigm is depicted and animated through the rise of citation rates and the movement of its core cluster towards the center of the cocitation network. We study two cases of competing scientific paradigms in the real world: (1) the causes of mass extinctions, and (2) the connections between mad cow disease and a new variant of a brain disease in humans-vCJD. Various theoretical and practical issues concerning this approach are discussed.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.8, S.678.689
-
Aguillo, I.F.; Granadino, B.; Ortega, J.L.; Prieto, J.A.: Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetrics indicators (2006)
0.03
0.033716384 = product of:
0.06743277 = sum of:
0.04020369 = weight(_text_:science in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04020369 = score(doc=5898,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 5898, 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=5898)
0.027229078 = weight(_text_:research in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027229078 = score(doc=5898,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 5898, 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=5898)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- To test feasibility of cybermetric indicators for describing and ranking university activities as shown in their Web sites, a large set of 9,330 institutions worldwide was compiled and analyzed. Using search engines' advanced features, size (number of pages), visibility (number of external inlinks), and number of rich files (pdf, ps, doc, ppt, and As formats) were obtained for each of the institutional domains of the universities. We found a statistically significant correlation between a Web ranking built on a combination of Webometric data and other university rankings based on bibliometric and other indicators. Results show that cybermetric measures could be useful for reflecting the contribution of technologically oriented institutions, increasing the visibility of developing countries, and improving the rankings based on Science Citation Index (SCI) data with known biases.
- Object
- Science Citation Index
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.10, S.1296-1302
-
Barnett, G.A.; Fink, E.L.: Impact of the internet and scholar age distribution on academic citation age (2008)
0.03
0.033716384 = product of:
0.06743277 = sum of:
0.04020369 = weight(_text_:science in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04020369 = score(doc=1376,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 1376, 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=1376)
0.027229078 = weight(_text_:research in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027229078 = score(doc=1376,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 1376, 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=1376)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This article examines the impact of the Internet and the age distribution of research scholars on academic citation age with a mathematical model proposed by Barnett, Fink, and Debus (1989) and a revised model that incorporates information about the online environment and scholar age distribution. The modified model fits the data well, accounting for 99.6% of the variance for science citations and 99.8% for social science citations. The Internet's impact on the aging process of academic citations has been very small, accounting for only 0.1% for the social sciences and 0.8% for the sciences. Rather than resulting in the use of more recent citations, the Internet appears to have lengthened the average life of academic citations by 6 to 8 months. The aging of scholars seems to have a greater impact, accounting for 2.8% of the variance for the sciences and 0.9% for the social sciences. However, because the diffusion of the Internet and the aging of the professoriate are correlated over this time period, differentiating their effects is somewhat problematic.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.4, S.526-534
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Opthof, T.: Citation analysis with medical subject Headings (MeSH) using the Web of Knowledge : a new routine (2013)
0.03
0.033716384 = product of:
0.06743277 = sum of:
0.04020369 = weight(_text_:science in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04020369 = score(doc=943,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 943, 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=943)
0.027229078 = weight(_text_:research in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027229078 = score(doc=943,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 943, 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=943)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Citation analysis of documents retrieved from the Medline database (at the Web of Knowledge) has been possible only on a case-by-case basis. A technique is presented here for citation analysis in batch mode using both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) at the Web of Knowledge and the Science Citation Index at the Web of Science (WoS). This freeware routine is applied to the case of "Brugada Syndrome," a specific disease and field of research (since 1992). The journals containing these publications, for example, are attributed to WoS categories other than "cardiac and cardiovascular systems", perhaps because of the possibility of genetic testing for this syndrome in the clinic. With this routine, all the instruments available for citation analysis can now be used on the basis of MeSH terms. Other options for crossing between Medline, WoS, and Scopus are also reviewed.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.1076-1080
-
Ardanuy, J.: Sixty years of citation analysis studies in the humanities (1951-2010) (2013)
0.03
0.033716384 = product of:
0.06743277 = sum of:
0.04020369 = weight(_text_:science in 1015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04020369 = score(doc=1015,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 1015, 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=1015)
0.027229078 = weight(_text_:research in 1015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027229078 = score(doc=1015,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 1015, 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=1015)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This article provides an overview of studies that have used citation analysis in the field of humanities in the period 1951 to 2010. The work is based on an exhaustive search in databases-particularly those in library and information science-and on citation chaining from papers on citation analysis. The results confirm that use of this technique in the humanities is limited, and although there was some growth in the 1970s and 1980s, it has stagnated in the past 2 decades. Most of the work has been done by research staff, but almost one third involves library staff, and 15% has been done by students. The study also showed that less than one fourth of the works used a citation database such as the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and that 21% of the works were in publications other than library and information science journals. The United States has the greatest output, and English is by far the most frequently used language, and 13.9% of the studies are in other languages.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.8, S.1751-1755
-
Rousseau, R.: Timelines in citation research (2006)
0.03
0.033627126 = product of:
0.06725425 = sum of:
0.030948812 = weight(_text_:science in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030948812 = score(doc=1746,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 1746, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1746)
0.03630544 = weight(_text_:research in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03630544 = score(doc=1746,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 1746, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1746)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.10, S.1404-1405
-
Chen, C.: Mapping scientific frontiers : the quest for knowledge visualization (2003)
0.03
0.033543546 = product of:
0.06708709 = sum of:
0.04893437 = weight(_text_:science in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04893437 = score(doc=2213,freq=20.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.36812937 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
0.01815272 = weight(_text_:research in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01815272 = score(doc=2213,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.12608525 = fieldWeight in 2213, 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=2213)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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.
The title of Chapter 5, On the Shoulders of Giants, implies that knowledge of the structure of scientific frontiers in the immediate past holds the key to a fruitful exploration of people's intellectual assets. Chapter 6, Tracing Competing Paradigms explains how information visualization can draw upon the philosophical framework of paradigm shifts and thereby enable scientists to track the development of Competing paradigms. The final chapter, Tracking Latent Domain Knowledge, turns citation analysis upside down by looking at techniques that may reveal latent domain knowledge. Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization is an excellent book and is highly recommended. The book convincingly outlines general theories conceming cartography, visual communication, and science mapping-especially how metaphors can make a "big picture"simple and useful. The author likewise Shows how the GSA framework is based not only an technical possibilities but indeed also an the visualization principles presented in the beginning chapters. Also, the author does a fine job of explaining why the mapping of scientific frontiers needs a combined effort from a diverse range of underlying disciplines, such as philosophy of science, sociology of science, scientometrics, domain analyses, information visualization, knowledge discovery, and data mining.
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.; Cardona, M.: Reference standards and reference multipliers for the comparison of the citation impact of papers published in different time periods (2010)
0.03
0.03297159 = product of:
0.06594318 = sum of:
0.043252286 = weight(_text_:science in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043252286 = score(doc=3998,freq=10.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
0.0226909 = weight(_text_:research in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0226909 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- In this study, reference standards and reference multipliers are suggested as a means to compare the citation impact of earlier research publications in physics (from the period of "Little Science" in the early 20th century) with that of contemporary papers (from the period of "Big Science," beginning around 1960). For the development of time-specific reference standards, the authors determined (a) the mean citation rates of papers in selected physics journals as well as (b) the mean citation rates of all papers in physics published in 1900 (Little Science) and in 2000 (Big Science); this was accomplished by relying on the processes of field-specific standardization in bibliometry. For the sake of developing reference multipliers with which the citation impact of earlier papers can be adjusted to the citation impact of contemporary papers, they combined the reference standards calculated for 1900 and 2000 into their ratio. The use of reference multipliers is demonstrated by means of two examples involving the time adjusted h index values for Max Planck and Albert Einstein.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.10, S.2061-20690
-
Schwartz, F.; Fang, Y.C.: Citation data analysis on hydrogeology (2007)
0.03
0.031237412 = product of:
0.062474824 = sum of:
0.021884115 = weight(_text_:science in 433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021884115 = score(doc=433,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.16463245 = fieldWeight in 433, 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=433)
0.04059071 = weight(_text_:research in 433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04059071 = score(doc=433,freq=10.0), product of:
0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.2819352 = fieldWeight in 433, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=433)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This article explores the status of research in hydrogeology using data mining techniques. First we try to explain what citation analysis is and review some of the previous work on citation analysis. The main idea in this article is to address some common issues about citation numbers and the use of these data. To validate the use of citation numbers, we compare the citation patterns for Water Resources Research papers in the 1980s with those in the 1990s. The citation growths for highly cited authors from the 1980s are used to examine whether it is possible to predict the citation patterns for highly-cited authors in the 1990s. If the citation data prove to be steady and stable, these numbers then can be used to explore the evolution of science in hydrogeology. The famous quotation, "If you are not the lead dog, the scenery never changes," attributed to Lee Iacocca, points to the importance of an entrepreneurial spirit in all forms of endeavor. In the case of hydrogeological research, impact analysis makes it clear how important it is to be a pioneer. Statistical correlation coefficients are used to retrieve papers among a collection of 2,847 papers before and after 1991 sharing the same topics with 273 papers in 1991 in Water Resources Research. The numbers of papers before and after 1991 are then plotted against various levels of citations for papers in 1991 to compare the distributions of paper population before and after that year. The similarity metrics based on word counts can ensure that the "before" papers are like ancestors and "after" papers are descendants in the same type of research. This exercise gives us an idea of how many papers are populated before and after 1991 (1991 is chosen based on balanced numbers of papers before and after that year). In addition, the impact of papers is measured in terms of citation presented as "percentile," a relative measure based on rankings in one year, in order to minimize the effect of time.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.4, S.518-525
-
Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020)
0.03
0.031113561 = product of:
0.062227122 = sum of:
0.038297202 = weight(_text_:science in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038297202 = score(doc=40,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
0.023929918 = product of:
0.047859836 = sum of:
0.047859836 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047859836 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050463587 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.
- Date
- 17.11.2020 12:22:59
- Object
- Web of Science
