Search (40 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.05 
    0.051691923 = product of:
  0.10338385 = sum of:
    0.10338385 = sum of:
      0.055522915 = weight(_text_:i in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055522915 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.04786093 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04786093 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.
    Date
    17.11.2020 12:22:59
  2. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.03 
    0.02953824 = product of:
  0.05907648 = sum of:
    0.05907648 = sum of:
      0.031727377 = weight(_text_:i in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031727377 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.027349105 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027349105 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35
  3. Malanga, G.: Classifying and screening journal literature with citation data (1982) 0.03 
    0.028043307 = product of:
  0.056086615 = sum of:
    0.056086615 = product of:
      0.11217323 = sum of:
        0.11217323 = weight(_text_:i in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11217323 = score(doc=553,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.58933276 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg
  4. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.03 
    0.027349105 = product of:
  0.05469821 = sum of:
    0.05469821 = product of:
      0.10939642 = sum of:
        0.10939642 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10939642 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = 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
  5. Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992) 0.03 
    0.027349105 = product of:
  0.05469821 = sum of:
    0.05469821 = product of:
      0.10939642 = sum of:
        0.10939642 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10939642 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = 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
  6. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.02 
    0.024173422 = product of:
  0.048346844 = sum of:
    0.048346844 = product of:
      0.09669369 = sum of:
        0.09669369 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09669369 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = 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
  7. Rajan, T.N.; Guha, B.; Sayanarayana, R.: Associate relationship of concepts as seen through citations and citation index (1982) 0.02 
    0.023795536 = product of:
  0.04759107 = sum of:
    0.04759107 = product of:
      0.09518214 = sum of:
        0.09518214 = weight(_text_:i in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09518214 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.50006545 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Universal classification II: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg
  8. Rousseau, R.; Zuccala, A.: ¬A classification of author co-citations : definitions and search strategies (2004) 0.02 
    0.022255965 = product of:
  0.04451193 = sum of:
    0.04451193 = product of:
      0.17804772 = sum of:
        0.17804772 = weight(_text_:author's in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17804772 = score(doc=2266,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3391308 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = 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.
  9. Hyland, K.: Self-citation and self-reference : credibility and promotion in academic publication (2003) 0.02 
    0.022255965 = product of:
  0.04451193 = sum of:
    0.04451193 = product of:
      0.17804772 = sum of:
        0.17804772 = weight(_text_:author's in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17804772 = score(doc=5156,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3391308 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = 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.
  10. White, H.D.: Authors as citers over time (2001) 0.02 
    0.021806305 = product of:
  0.04361261 = sum of:
    0.04361261 = product of:
      0.17445044 = sum of:
        0.17445044 = weight(_text_:author's in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17445044 = score(doc=5581,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.3391308 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = 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
  11. Chen, C.: Mapping scientific frontiers : the quest for knowledge visualization (2003) 0.02 
    0.017804774 = product of:
  0.035609547 = sum of:
    0.035609547 = product of:
      0.14243819 = sum of:
        0.14243819 = weight(_text_:author's in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14243819 = score(doc=2213,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3391308 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = 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.
  12. Pudovkin, A.I.; Garfield, E.: Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals (2002) 0.02 
    0.01717295 = product of:
  0.0343459 = sum of:
    0.0343459 = product of:
      0.0686918 = sum of:
        0.0686918 = weight(_text_:i in 5220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0686918 = score(doc=5220,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.36089116 = fieldWeight in 5220, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5220)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Journal Citation Reports provides a classification of journals most heavily cited by a given journal and which most heavily cite that journal, but size variation is not taken into account. Pudovkin and Garfield suggest a procedure for meeting this difficulty. The relatedness of journal i to journal j is determined by the number of citations from journal i to journal j in a given year normalized by the product of the papers published in the j journal in that year times the number of references cited in the i journal in that year. A multiplier of ten to the sixth is suggested to bring the values into an easily perceptible range. While citations received depend upon the overall cumulative number of papers published by a journal, the current year is utilized since that data is available in JCR. Citations to current year papers would be quite low in most fields and thus not included. To produce the final index, the maximum of the A citing B value, and the B citing A value is chosen and used to indicate the closeness of the journals. The procedure is illustrated for the journal Genetics.
  13. Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.02 
    0.01709319 = product of:
  0.03418638 = sum of:
    0.03418638 = product of:
      0.06837276 = sum of:
        0.06837276 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06837276 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = 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
  14. Belter, C.W.: Citation analysis as a literature search method for systematic reviews (2016) 0.02 
    0.016825985 = product of:
  0.03365197 = sum of:
    0.03365197 = product of:
      0.06730394 = sum of:
        0.06730394 = weight(_text_:i in 3158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06730394 = score(doc=3158,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.35359967 = fieldWeight in 3158, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Systematic reviews are essential for evaluating biomedical treatment options, but the growing size and complexity of the available biomedical literature combined with the rigor of the systematic review method mean that systematic reviews are extremely difficult and labor-intensive to perform. In this article, I propose a method of searching the literature by systematically mining the various types of citation relationships between articles. I then test the method by comparing its precision and recall to that of 14 published systematic reviews. The method successfully retrieved 74% of the studies included in these reviews and 90% of the studies it could reasonably be expected to retrieve. The method also retrieved fewer than half of the total number of publications retrieved by these reviews and can be performed in substantially less time. This suggests that the proposed method offers a promising complement to traditional text-based methods of literature identification and retrieval for systematic reviews.
  15. Osareh, F.: Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis : a review of literature I (1996) 0.02 
    0.015863689 = product of:
  0.031727377 = sum of:
    0.031727377 = product of:
      0.063454755 = sum of:
        0.063454755 = weight(_text_:i in 7170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063454755 = score(doc=7170,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 7170, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7170)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  16. Harter, S.P.; Nisonger, T.E.; Weng, A.: Semantic relationsships between cited and citing articles in library and information science journals (1993) 0.02 
    0.015737344 = product of:
  0.031474687 = sum of:
    0.031474687 = product of:
      0.12589875 = sum of:
        0.12589875 = weight(_text_:author's in 5644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12589875 = score(doc=5644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3391308 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = 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
  17. Vaughan, L.; Shaw, D.: Web citation data for impact assessment : a comparison of four science disciplines (2005) 0.02 
    0.015737344 = product of:
  0.031474687 = sum of:
    0.031474687 = product of:
      0.12589875 = sum of:
        0.12589875 = weight(_text_:author's in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12589875 = score(doc=3880,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3391308 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = 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.
  18. Vaughan, L.; Shaw , D.: Bibliographic and Web citations : what Is the difference? (2003) 0.02 
    0.015737344 = product of:
  0.031474687 = sum of:
    0.031474687 = product of:
      0.12589875 = sum of:
        0.12589875 = weight(_text_:author's in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12589875 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3391308 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = 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.
  19. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01 
    0.014504054 = product of:
  0.029008107 = sum of:
    0.029008107 = product of:
      0.058016215 = sum of:
        0.058016215 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058016215 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = 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
  20. Száva-Kováts, E.: Indirect-collective referencing (ICR) in the elite journal literature of physics : I: a literature science study on the journal level (2001) 0.01 
    0.013880729 = product of:
  0.027761457 = sum of:
    0.027761457 = product of:
      0.055522915 = sum of:
        0.055522915 = weight(_text_:i in 5180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055522915 = score(doc=5180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 5180, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 34
  • d 6

Types

  • a 39
  • el 3
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes