-
Ma, N.; Guan, J.; Zhao, Y.: Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis (2008)
0.05
0.051323257 = product of:
0.102646515 = sum of:
0.102646515 = sum of:
0.06184896 = weight(_text_:n in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06184896 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2163874 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = queryNorm
0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 2064, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2064)
0.040797554 = weight(_text_:22 in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040797554 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17574495 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2064, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2064)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 31. 7.2008 14:22:05
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.03
0.02719837 = product of:
0.05439674 = sum of:
0.05439674 = product of:
0.10879348 = sum of:
0.10879348 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10879348 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17574495 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 13. 7.2008 19:53:22
-
Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992)
0.03
0.02719837 = product of:
0.05439674 = sum of:
0.05439674 = product of:
0.10879348 = sum of:
0.10879348 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10879348 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17574495 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 7. 2.2005 14:10:22
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.02
0.02404019 = product of:
0.04808038 = sum of:
0.04808038 = product of:
0.09616076 = sum of:
0.09616076 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09616076 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17574495 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:22:28
-
Umstätter, W.: Szientometrische Verfahren (2004)
0.02
0.023049748 = product of:
0.046099495 = sum of:
0.046099495 = product of:
0.09219899 = sum of:
0.09219899 = weight(_text_:n in 2920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09219899 = score(doc=2920,freq=10.0), product of:
0.2163874 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = queryNorm
0.42608297 = fieldWeight in 2920, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2920)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
-
Rousseau, R.; Zuccala, A.: ¬A classification of author co-citations : definitions and search strategies (2004)
0.02
0.022133304 = product of:
0.044266608 = sum of:
0.044266608 = product of:
0.17706643 = sum of:
0.17706643 = weight(_text_:author's in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.17706643 = score(doc=2266,freq=4.0), product of:
0.3372617 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = 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.
-
Hyland, K.: Self-citation and self-reference : credibility and promotion in academic publication (2003)
0.02
0.022133304 = product of:
0.044266608 = sum of:
0.044266608 = product of:
0.17706643 = sum of:
0.17706643 = weight(_text_:author's in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.17706643 = score(doc=5156,freq=4.0), product of:
0.3372617 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = 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.
-
White, H.D.: Authors as citers over time (2001)
0.02
0.021686122 = product of:
0.043372244 = sum of:
0.043372244 = product of:
0.17348897 = sum of:
0.17348897 = weight(_text_:author's in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.17348897 = score(doc=5581,freq=6.0), product of:
0.3372617 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = 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
-
Leydesdorff, L.: Dynamic and evolutionary updates of classificatory schemes in scientific journal structures (2002)
0.02
0.01803928 = product of:
0.03607856 = sum of:
0.03607856 = product of:
0.07215712 = sum of:
0.07215712 = weight(_text_:n in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07215712 = score(doc=1249,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2163874 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = queryNorm
0.33346266 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Can the inclusion of new journals in the Science Citation Index be used for the indication of structural change in the database, and how can this change be compared with reorganizations of reiations among previously included journals? Change in the number of journals (n) is distinguished from change in the number of journal categories (m). Although the number of journals can be considered as a given at each moment in time, the number of journal categories is based an a reconstruction that is time-stamped ex post. The reflexive reconstruction is in need of an update when new information becomes available in a next year. Implications of this shift towards an evolutionary perspective are specified.
-
Chen, C.: Mapping scientific frontiers : the quest for knowledge visualization (2003)
0.02
0.017706644 = product of:
0.035413288 = sum of:
0.035413288 = product of:
0.14165315 = sum of:
0.14165315 = weight(_text_:author's in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14165315 = score(doc=2213,freq=4.0), product of:
0.3372617 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
-
Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002)
0.02
0.016998982 = product of:
0.033997964 = sum of:
0.033997964 = product of:
0.06799593 = sum of:
0.06799593 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06799593 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17574495 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
-
Harter, S.P.; Nisonger, T.E.; Weng, A.: Semantic relationsships between cited and citing articles in library and information science journals (1993)
0.02
0.01565061 = product of:
0.03130122 = sum of:
0.03130122 = product of:
0.12520488 = sum of:
0.12520488 = weight(_text_:author's in 5644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12520488 = score(doc=5644,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3372617 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = 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
-
Vaughan, L.; Shaw, D.: Web citation data for impact assessment : a comparison of four science disciplines (2005)
0.02
0.01565061 = product of:
0.03130122 = sum of:
0.03130122 = product of:
0.12520488 = sum of:
0.12520488 = weight(_text_:author's in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12520488 = score(doc=3880,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3372617 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = 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.
-
Vaughan, L.; Shaw , D.: Bibliographic and Web citations : what Is the difference? (2003)
0.02
0.01565061 = product of:
0.03130122 = sum of:
0.03130122 = product of:
0.12520488 = sum of:
0.12520488 = weight(_text_:author's in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12520488 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3372617 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = queryNorm
0.3712395 = fieldWeight in 5176, 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=5176)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Vaughn, and Shaw look at the relationship between traditional citation and Web citation (not hyperlinks but rather textual mentions of published papers). Using English language research journals in ISI's 2000 Journal Citation Report - Information and Library Science category - 1209 full length papers published in 1997 in 46 journals were identified. Each was searched in Social Science Citation Index and on the Web using Google phrase search by entering the title in quotation marks, and followed for distinction where necessary with sub-titles, author's names, and journal title words. After removing obvious false drops, the number of web sites was recorded for comparison with the SSCI counts. A second sample from 1992 was also collected for examination. There were a total of 16,371 web citations to the selected papers. The top and bottom ranked four journals were then examined and every third citation to every third paper was selected and classified as to source type, domain, and country of origin. Web counts are much higher than ISI citation counts. Of the 46 journals from 1997, 26 demonstrated a significant correlation between Web and traditional citation counts, and 11 of the 15 in the 1992 sample also showed significant correlation. Journal impact factor in 1998 and 1999 correlated significantly with average Web citations per journal in the 1997 data, but at a low level. Thirty percent of web citations come from other papers posted on the web, and 30percent from listings of web based bibliographic services, while twelve percent come from class reading lists. High web citation journals often have web accessible tables of content.
-
Sombatsompop, N.; Markpin, T.: Making an equality of ISI impact factors for different subject fields (2005)
0.02
0.01546224 = product of:
0.03092448 = sum of:
0.03092448 = product of:
0.06184896 = sum of:
0.06184896 = weight(_text_:n in 3467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06184896 = score(doc=3467,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2163874 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = queryNorm
0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 3467, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3467)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Jacobs, N.; Woodfield, J.; Morris, A.: Using local citation data to relate the use of journal articles by academic researchers to the coverage of full-text document access systems (2000)
0.02
0.01546224 = product of:
0.03092448 = sum of:
0.03092448 = product of:
0.06184896 = sum of:
0.06184896 = weight(_text_:n in 4541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06184896 = score(doc=4541,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2163874 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = queryNorm
0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 4541, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4541)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Shibata, N.; Kajikawa, Y.; Matsushima, K.: Topological analysis of citation networks to discover the future core articles (2007)
0.02
0.01546224 = product of:
0.03092448 = sum of:
0.03092448 = product of:
0.06184896 = sum of:
0.06184896 = weight(_text_:n in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06184896 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2163874 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = queryNorm
0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review : a citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere (2008)
0.01
0.01457794 = product of:
0.02915588 = sum of:
0.02915588 = product of:
0.05831176 = sum of:
0.05831176 = weight(_text_:n in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05831176 = score(doc=2381,freq=4.0), product of:
0.2163874 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = queryNorm
0.26947853 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- All journals that use peer review have to deal with the following question: Does the peer review system fulfill its declared objective to select the best scientific work? We investigated the journal peer-review process at Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), one of the prime chemistry journals worldwide, and conducted a citation analysis for Communications that were accepted by the journal (n = 878) or rejected but published elsewhere (n = 959). The results of negative binomial-regression models show that holding all other model variables constant, being accepted by AC-IE increases the expected number of citations by up to 50%. A comparison of average citation counts (with 95% confidence intervals) of accepted and rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications with international scientific reference standards was undertaken. As reference standards, (a) mean citation counts for the journal set provided by Thomson Reuters corresponding to the field chemistry and (b) specific reference standards that refer to the subject areas of Chemical Abstracts were used. When compared to reference standards, the mean impact on chemical research is for the most part far above average not only for accepted Communications but also for rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications. However, average and below-average scientific impact is to be expected significantly less frequently for accepted Communications than for rejected Communications. All in all, the results of this study confirm that peer review at AC-IE is able to select the best scientific work with the highest impact on chemical research.
-
Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009)
0.01
0.0144241145 = product of:
0.028848229 = sum of:
0.028848229 = product of:
0.057696458 = sum of:
0.057696458 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057696458 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17574495 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = queryNorm
0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:22:35
-
Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013)
0.01
0.013599185 = product of:
0.02719837 = sum of:
0.02719837 = product of:
0.05439674 = sum of:
0.05439674 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05439674 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17574495 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050186608 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 17.12.2013 11:02:22
