Search (87 results, page 1 of 5)

0.04694014 = sum of:
  0.037600204 = product of:
    0.15040082 = sum of:
      0.15040082 = weight(_text_:author's in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15040082 = score(doc=2213,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.358089 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053285837 = queryNorm
          0.42000958 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.009339937 = product of:
    0.02801981 = sum of:
      0.02801981 = weight(_text_:c in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02801981 = score(doc=2213,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18380444 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053285837 = queryNorm
          0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0361781 = product of:
  0.0723562 = sum of:
    0.0723562 = product of:
      0.1085343 = sum of:
        0.036339343 = weight(_text_:h in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036339343 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13238595 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.27449545 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
        0.072194956 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072194956 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18659793 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25

0.033667963 = product of:
  0.067335926 = sum of:
    0.067335926 = product of:
      0.101003885 = sum of:
        0.057686917 = weight(_text_:h in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057686917 = score(doc=590,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.13238595 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.435748 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
        0.04331697 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04331697 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18659793 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Zur Kurzmitteilung "Latest enhancements in Scopus: ... h-Index incorporated in Scopus" in den letzten Online-Mitteilungen (Online-Mitteilungen 92, S.31) ist zu korrigieren, dass der h-Index sehr wohl bereits im Web of Science enthalten ist. Allerdings findet man/frau diese Information nicht in der "cited ref search", sondern neben der Trefferliste einer Quick Search, General Search oder einer Suche über den Author Finder in der rechten Navigationsleiste unter dem Titel "Citation Report". Der "Citation Report" bietet für die in der jeweiligen Trefferliste angezeigten Arbeiten: - Die Gesamtzahl der Zitierungen aller Arbeiten in der Trefferliste - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten - Die Anzahl der Zitierungen der einzelnen Arbeiten, aufgeschlüsselt nach Publikationsjahr der zitierenden Arbeiten - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten pro Jahr - Den h-Index (ein h-Index von x sagt aus, dass x Arbeiten der Trefferliste mehr als x-mal zitiert wurden; er ist gegenüber sehr hohen Zitierungen einzelner Arbeiten unempfindlicher als die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit)."

Date

6. 4.2008 19:04:22

Object

H-Index

Source

Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 61(2008) H.1, S.124-125

0.028836861 = product of:
  0.057673723 = sum of:
    0.057673723 = product of:
      0.086510584 = sum of:
        0.03597411 = weight(_text_:h in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03597411 = score(doc=6920,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13238595 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.27173662 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
        0.05053647 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05053647 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18659793 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.028448895 = product of:
  0.05689779 = sum of:
    0.05689779 = product of:
      0.085346684 = sum of:
        0.042029716 = weight(_text_:c in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042029716 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18380444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
        0.04331697 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04331697 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18659793 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2014 16:52:04

0.024824068 = product of:
  0.049648136 = sum of:
    0.049648136 = product of:
      0.074472204 = sum of:
        0.049034666 = weight(_text_:c in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049034666 = score(doc=1735,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18380444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
        0.02543754 = weight(_text_:h in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02543754 = score(doc=1735,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13238595 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.023500126 = product of:
  0.04700025 = sum of:
    0.04700025 = product of:
      0.188001 = sum of:
        0.188001 = weight(_text_:author's in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.188001 = score(doc=2266,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.358089 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.52501196 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The term author co-citation is defined and classified according to four distinct forms: the pure first-author co-citation, the pure author co-citation, the general author co-citation, and the special co-authorlco-citation. Each form can be used to obtain one count in an author co-citation study, based an a binary counting rule, which either recognizes the co-citedness of two authors in a given reference list (1) or does not (0). Most studies using author co-citations have relied solely an first-author cocitation counts as evidence of an author's oeuvre or body of work contributed to a research field. In this article, we argue that an author's contribution to a selected field of study should not be limited, but should be based an his/her complete list of publications, regardless of author ranking. We discuss the implications associated with using each co-citation form and show where simple first-author co-citations fit within our classification scheme. Examples are given to substantiate each author co-citation form defined in our classification, including a set of sample Dialog(TM) searches using references extracted from the SciSearch database.

0.023500126 = product of:
  0.04700025 = sum of:
    0.04700025 = product of:
      0.188001 = sum of:
        0.188001 = weight(_text_:author's in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.188001 = score(doc=5156,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.358089 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.52501196 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.023025328 = product of:
  0.046050657 = sum of:
    0.046050657 = product of:
      0.18420263 = sum of:
        0.18420263 = weight(_text_:author's in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18420263 = score(doc=5581,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.358089 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.5144046 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study explores the tendency of authors to recite themselves and others in multiple works over time, using the insights gained to build citation theory. The set of all authors whom an author cites is defined as that author's citation identity. The study explains how to retrieve citation identities from the Institute for Scientific Information's files on Dialog and how to deal with idiosyncrasies of these files. As the author's oeuvre grows, the identity takes the form of a core-and-scatter distribution that may be divided into authors cited only once (unicitations) and authors cited at least twice (recitations). The latter group, especially those recited most frequently, are interpretable as symbols of a citer's main substantive concerns. As illustrated by the top recitees of eight information scientists, identities are intelligible, individualized, and wide-ranging. They are ego-centered without being egotistical. They are often affected by social ties between citers and citees, but the universal motivator seems to be the perceived relevance of the citees' works. Citing styles in identities differ: "scientific-paper style" authors recite heavily, adding to core; "bibliographic-essay style" authors are heavy on unicitations, adding to scatter; "literature-review style" authors do both at once. Identities distill aspects of citers' intellectual lives, such as orienting figures, interdisciplinary interests, bidisciplinary careers, and conduct in controversies. They can also be related to past schemes for classifying citations in categories such as positive-negative and perfunctory- organic; indeed, one author's frequent recitation of another, whether positive or negative, may be the readiest indicator of an organic relation between them. The shape of the core-and-scatter distribution of names in identities can be explained by the principle of least effort. Citers economize on effort by frequently reciting only a relatively small core of names in their identities. They also economize by frequent use of perfunctory citations, which require relatively little context, and infrequent use of negative citations, which require contexts more laborious to set

0.02170686 = product of:
  0.04341372 = sum of:
    0.04341372 = product of:
      0.06512058 = sum of:
        0.021803604 = weight(_text_:h in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021803604 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13238595 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
        0.04331697 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04331697 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18659793 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:33:24

0.02170686 = product of:
  0.04341372 = sum of:
    0.04341372 = product of:
      0.06512058 = sum of:
        0.021803604 = weight(_text_:h in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021803604 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13238595 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
        0.04331697 = weight(_text_:22 in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04331697 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18659793 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1270, 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=1270)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Mikhail Simkin und Vwani Roychowdhury von der University of Califomia, Los Angeles, haben eine in der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft verbreitete Unsitte erstmals quantitativ erfasst. Die Wissenschaftler analysierten die Verbreitung von Druckfehlern in den Literaturlisten wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten (www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043). 78 Prozent aller zitierten Aufsätze - so schätzen die Forscher - haben die zitierenden Wissenschaftler demnach nicht gelesen, sondern nur per 'cut and paste' von einer Vorlage in ihre eigene Literaturliste übernommen. Das könne man beispielsweise abschätzen aus der Analyse fehlerhafter Seitenangaben in der Literaturliste eines 1973 veröffentlichten Aufsatzes über die Struktur zweidimensionaler Kristalle: Dieser Aufsatz ist rund 4300 mal zitiert worden. In 196 Fällen enthalten die Zitate jedoch Fehler in der Jahreszahl, dem Band der Zeitschrift oder der Seitenzahl, die als Indikatoren für cut and paste genommen werden können, denn man kann, obwohl es Milliarden Möglichkeiten gibt, nur 45 verschiedene Arten von Druckfehlern unterscheiden. In erster Näherung ergibt sich eine Obergrenze für die Zahl der `echten Leser' daher aus der Zahl der unterscheidbaren Druckfehler (45) geteilt durch die Gesamtzahl der Publikationen mit Druckfehler (196), das macht etwa 22 Prozent."

Source

c't. 2003, H.1, S.38

0.02170686 = product of:
  0.04341372 = sum of:
    0.04341372 = product of:
      0.06512058 = sum of:
        0.021803604 = weight(_text_:h in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021803604 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13238595 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
        0.04331697 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04331697 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18659793 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 1.2007 17:22:03

0.021277774 = product of:
  0.04255555 = sum of:
    0.04255555 = product of:
      0.06383332 = sum of:
        0.042029716 = weight(_text_:c in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042029716 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18380444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
        0.021803604 = weight(_text_:h in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021803604 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13238595 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 50(2003) H.3, S.131-140

0.01925199 = product of:
  0.03850398 = sum of:
    0.03850398 = product of:
      0.11551193 = sum of:
        0.11551193 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11551193 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18659793 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.01925199 = product of:
  0.03850398 = sum of:
    0.03850398 = product of:
      0.11551193 = sum of:
        0.11551193 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11551193 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18659793 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, 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=4604)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7. 2.2005 14:10:22

0.018679874 = product of:
  0.037359748 = sum of:
    0.037359748 = product of:
      0.11207924 = sum of:
        0.11207924 = weight(_text_:c in 3595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11207924 = score(doc=3595,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18380444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.6097744 = fieldWeight in 3595, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3595)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.01808905 = product of:
  0.0361781 = sum of:
    0.0361781 = product of:
      0.05426715 = sum of:
        0.018169671 = weight(_text_:h in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018169671 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13238595 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
        0.036097478 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036097478 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18659793 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2008 12:54:12

Source

Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 61(2008) H.2, S.14-20

0.017016515 = product of:
  0.03403303 = sum of:
    0.03403303 = product of:
      0.10209908 = sum of:
        0.10209908 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10209908 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18659793 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.016617099 = product of:
  0.033234198 = sum of:
    0.033234198 = product of:
      0.13293679 = sum of:
        0.13293679 = weight(_text_:author's in 5644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13293679 = score(doc=5644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.358089 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.3712395 = fieldWeight in 5644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5644)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The act of referencing another author's work in a scholarly or research paper is usually assumed to signal a direct semantic relationship between the citing and cited work. The present article reports a study that examines this assumption directly. The purpose of the research is to investigate the semantic relationship between citing and cited documents for a sample of document pairs in three journals in library and information science: 'Library journal', 'College and research libraries' and 'Journal of the American Society for Information Science'. A macroanalysis, absed on a comparison of the Library of Congress class numbers assigned citing and cited documents, and a microanalysis, based on a comparison of descriptors assigned citing and cited documents by three indexing and abstracting journals, ERIC, LISA and LiLi, were conducted. Both analyses suggest that the subject similarity among pairs of cited and citing documents is typically very small, supporting a subjective, psychological view of relevance and a trial-and-error, heuristic understanding of the information search and research processes. The results of the study have implications for collection development, for an understanding of psychological relevance, and for the results of doing information retrieval using cited references. Several intriguing methodological questions are raised for future research, including the role of indexing depth, specifity, and quality on the measurement of document similarity

0.016617099 = product of:
  0.033234198 = sum of:
    0.033234198 = product of:
      0.13293679 = sum of:
        0.13293679 = weight(_text_:author's in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13293679 = score(doc=3880,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.358089 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053285837 = queryNorm
            0.3712395 = fieldWeight in 3880, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3880)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The number and type of Web citations to journal articles in four areas of science are examined: biology, genetics, medicine, and multidisciplinary sciences. For a sample of 5,972 articles published in 114 journals, the median Web citation counts per journal article range from 6.2 in medicine to 10.4 in genetics. About 30% of Web citations in each area indicate intellectual impact (citations from articles or class readings, in contrast to citations from bibliographic services or the author's or journal's home page). Journals receiving more Web citations also have higher percentages of citations indicating intellectual impact. There is significant correlation between the number of citations reported in the databases from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now Thomson Scientific) and the number of citations retrieved using the Google search engine (Web citations). The correlation is much weaker for journals published outside the United Kingdom or United States and for multidisciplinary journals. Web citation numbers are higher than ISI citation counts, suggesting that Web searches might be conducted for an earlier or a more fine-grained assessment of an article's impact. The Web-evident impact of non-UK/USA publications might provide a balance to the geographic or cultural biases observed in ISI's data, although the stability of Web citation counts is debatable.