Search (44 results, page 1 of 3)

0.049023245 = sum of:
  0.03571556 = product of:
    0.14286225 = sum of:
      0.14286225 = weight(_text_:author's in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14286225 = score(doc=2213,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.34014043 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061498 = 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)
  0.013307684 = product of:
    0.026615368 = sum of:
      0.026615368 = weight(_text_:c in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026615368 = score(doc=2213,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17459157 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061498 = 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)
    0.5 = 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.

0.04053442 = product of:
  0.08106884 = sum of:
    0.08106884 = sum of:
      0.039923053 = weight(_text_:c in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039923053 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17459157 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061498 = 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)
      0.041145787 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041145787 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17724504 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061498 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2014 16:52:04

0.027430525 = product of:
  0.05486105 = sum of:
    0.05486105 = product of:
      0.1097221 = sum of:
        0.1097221 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1097221 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17724504 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = 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

0.027430525 = product of:
  0.05486105 = sum of:
    0.05486105 = product of:
      0.1097221 = sum of:
        0.1097221 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1097221 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17724504 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = 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

0.026615368 = product of:
  0.053230736 = sum of:
    0.053230736 = product of:
      0.10646147 = sum of:
        0.10646147 = weight(_text_:c in 3595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10646147 = score(doc=3595,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17459157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.024245387 = product of:
  0.048490774 = sum of:
    0.048490774 = product of:
      0.09698155 = sum of:
        0.09698155 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09698155 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17724504 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = 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

0.022322224 = product of:
  0.04464445 = sum of:
    0.04464445 = product of:
      0.1785778 = sum of:
        0.1785778 = weight(_text_:author's in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1785778 = score(doc=2266,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.34014043 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = 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.

0.022322224 = product of:
  0.04464445 = sum of:
    0.04464445 = product of:
      0.1785778 = sum of:
        0.1785778 = weight(_text_:author's in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1785778 = score(doc=5156,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.34014043 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = 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.

0.021871226 = product of:
  0.04374245 = sum of:
    0.04374245 = product of:
      0.1749698 = sum of:
        0.1749698 = weight(_text_:author's in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1749698 = score(doc=5581,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.34014043 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = 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

0.017144078 = product of:
  0.034288157 = sum of:
    0.034288157 = product of:
      0.06857631 = sum of:
        0.06857631 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06857631 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17724504 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = 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

0.015784197 = product of:
  0.031568393 = sum of:
    0.031568393 = product of:
      0.12627357 = sum of:
        0.12627357 = weight(_text_:author's in 5644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12627357 = score(doc=5644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34014043 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = 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

0.015784197 = product of:
  0.031568393 = sum of:
    0.031568393 = product of:
      0.12627357 = sum of:
        0.12627357 = weight(_text_:author's in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12627357 = score(doc=3880,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34014043 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = 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.

0.015784197 = product of:
  0.031568393 = sum of:
    0.031568393 = product of:
      0.12627357 = sum of:
        0.12627357 = weight(_text_:author's in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12627357 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34014043 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = 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.

0.0145472335 = product of:
  0.029094467 = sum of:
    0.029094467 = product of:
      0.058188934 = sum of:
        0.058188934 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058188934 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17724504 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = 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

0.0137152625 = product of:
  0.027430525 = sum of:
    0.027430525 = product of:
      0.05486105 = sum of:
        0.05486105 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05486105 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17724504 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = 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

0.013307684 = product of:
  0.026615368 = sum of:
    0.026615368 = product of:
      0.053230736 = sum of:
        0.053230736 = weight(_text_:c in 6673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053230736 = score(doc=6673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17459157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = queryNorm
            0.3048872 = fieldWeight in 6673, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6673)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.013307684 = product of:
  0.026615368 = sum of:
    0.026615368 = product of:
      0.053230736 = sum of:
        0.053230736 = weight(_text_:c in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053230736 = score(doc=1064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17459157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = queryNorm
            0.3048872 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.012627357 = product of:
  0.025254713 = sum of:
    0.025254713 = product of:
      0.10101885 = sum of:
        0.10101885 = weight(_text_:author's in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10101885 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34014043 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = queryNorm
            0.29699162 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the author's three previous articles dealing with the ICR phenomenon (JASIS, 49, 1998, 477-481; 50, 1999, 1284-1294; JASIST, 52, 2001, 201-211) the nature, life course, and importance of this phenomenon of scientific literature was demonstrated. It was shown that the quantity of nonindexed indirect-collective references in The Physical Review now alone exceeds many times over the quantity of formal references listed in the Science Citation Index as "citations." It was shown that the ICR phenomenon is present in all the 44 elite physics journals of a representative sample of this literature. The bibliometrically very heterogeneous sample is very homogeneous regarding the presence and frequency of the ICR phenomenon. However, no real connection could be found between the simple degree of documentedness and the presence and frequency of the ICR phenomenon on the journal level of the sample. The present article reports the findings of the latest ICR investigation carried out on the level of communications of the representative sample. Correlation calculations were carried out in the stock of all 458 communications containing the ICR phenomenon as a statistical population, and within this population also in the groups of communications of the "normal" and the "letter" journals, and the "short communications." The correlation analysis did not find notable statistical correlation between the simple and specific degree of documentedness of a communication and the number of works cited in it by ICR act(s) either in the total population or in the selected groups. There is no correlation either statistical or real (i.e., cause-and-effect) between the documentedness of scientific communications made by their authors and the presence and intensity of the ICR method used by their authors. However, in reality there exists a very strong connection between these two statistically independent variables: both depend on the referencing author, on his/her subjectivity and barely limited subjective free will. This subjective free will shapes the stock of the formal-direct references of scientific communications, thereby placing the achievements cited in this way and their creators into the (indexed) showcase of present Big Science. The same free will decides on the use or nonuse of the ICR method, and in the case of use also on the intensity with which the method is used

0.012627357 = product of:
  0.025254713 = sum of:
    0.025254713 = product of:
      0.10101885 = sum of:
        0.10101885 = weight(_text_:author's in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10101885 = score(doc=3632,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34014043 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = queryNorm
            0.29699162 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Indexes in general seek to provide a "key" to a body of literature intending to help the user in identifying, verifying, and/or locating individual or related items. The most common devices for collocation in indexes are authors' names and subjects. A different approach to collocating related items in an index is provided by a method called "citation indexing." Citation indexes attempt to link items through citations or references, in other works, by bringing together items cited in a particular work and the works citing a particular item. Citation indexing is based an the concept that there is a significant intellectual link between a document and each bibliographic item cited in it and that this link is useful to the scholar because an author's references to earlier writings identify relevant information to the subject of his current work. One of the major differences between the citation index and the traditional subject index is that the former, while listing current literature, also provides a retrospec tive view of past literature. While each issue of a traditional index is normally concerned only with the current literature, the citation index brings back retrospective literature in the form of cited references, thereby linking current scholarly works with earlier works. The advantages of the citation index have been considered to be its value as a tool for tracing the history of ideas or discoveries, for associating ideas between current and past work, and for evaluating works of individual authors or library collections. The concept of citation indexing is not new. It has been applied to legal literature since 1873 in a legal reference tool called Shepard's Citations. In the 1950s Eugene Garfield, a documentation consultant and founder and President of the Institute for Scientific Information (Philadelphia), developed the technique of citation indexing for scientific literature. This new application was facilitated by the availability of computer technology, resulting in a series of services: Science Citation Index (1955- ), Social Sciences Citation Index (1966- ), and the Arts & Humanities Index (1976- ). All three appear in printed versions and as machine-readable databases. In the following essay, the first in a series of articles and books elucidating the citation indexing system, Garfield traces the origin and beginning of this idea, its advantages, and the methods of preparing such indexes.

0.012000854 = product of:
  0.024001708 = sum of:
    0.024001708 = product of:
      0.048003417 = sum of:
        0.048003417 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048003417 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17724504 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061498 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16.12.2001 14:01:22