-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.09
0.086251274 = product of:
0.17250255 = sum of:
0.17250255 = sum of:
0.07243236 = weight(_text_:b in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07243236 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.3914457 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.10007018 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10007018 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:22:28
-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.08
0.08409272 = sum of:
0.026815655 = product of:
0.10726262 = sum of:
0.10726262 = weight(_text_:authors in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10726262 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.45050737 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.057277065 = sum of:
0.028972944 = weight(_text_:b in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028972944 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.02830412 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02830412 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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)
- 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
-
Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996)
0.06
0.057205066 = sum of:
0.035976976 = product of:
0.1439079 = sum of:
0.1439079 = weight(_text_:authors in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1439079 = score(doc=4215,freq=8.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.60441905 = fieldWeight in 4215, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4215)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.02122809 = product of:
0.04245618 = sum of:
0.04245618 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04245618 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles
-
Cronin, B.: Tiered citation and measures of document similarity (1994)
0.05
0.052957594 = sum of:
0.02398465 = product of:
0.0959386 = sum of:
0.0959386 = weight(_text_:authors in 7773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0959386 = score(doc=7773,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 7773, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7773)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.028972944 = product of:
0.05794589 = sum of:
0.05794589 = weight(_text_:b in 7773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05794589 = score(doc=7773,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 7773, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7773)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The degree of similarity netween pairs of cited and citing documents is frequently small. One factor may be the ways in which authors draw upon and cite the work of others. The idea of tiered, or multilayered, citation is proposed as a means of testing this hypothesis. A tentative citation typology is outlined
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006)
0.05
0.05011743 = product of:
0.10023486 = sum of:
0.10023486 = sum of:
0.05070265 = weight(_text_:b in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05070265 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
0.04953221 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04953221 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, 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=5269)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:20:01
-
Snyder, H.; Cronin, B.; Davenport, E.: What's the use of citation? : Citation analysis as a literature topic in selected disciplines of the social sciences (1995)
0.04
0.039718196 = sum of:
0.017988488 = product of:
0.07195395 = sum of:
0.07195395 = weight(_text_:authors in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07195395 = score(doc=1825,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.021729708 = product of:
0.043459415 = sum of:
0.043459415 = weight(_text_:b in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043459415 = score(doc=1825,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a study to investigate the place and role of citation analysis in selected disciplines in the social sciences, including library and information science. 5 core library and information science periodicals: Journal of documentation; Library quarterly; Journal of the American Society for Information Science; College and research libraries; and the Journal of information science, were studed to determine the percentage of articles devoted to citation analysis and develop an indictive typology to categorize the major foci of research being conducted under the rubric of citation analysis. Similar analysis was conducted for periodicals in other social sciences disciplines. Demonstrates how the rubric can be used to dertermine how citatiion analysis is applied within library and information science and other disciplines. By isolating citation from bibliometrics in general, this work is differentiated from other, previous studies. Analysis of data from a 10 year sample of transdisciplinary social sciences literature suggests that 2 application areas predominate: the validity of citation as an evaluation tool; and impact or performance studies of authors, periodicals, and institutions
-
Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006)
0.04
0.039216578 = sum of:
0.017988488 = product of:
0.07195395 = sum of:
0.07195395 = weight(_text_:authors in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07195395 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.02122809 = product of:
0.04245618 = sum of:
0.04245618 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04245618 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.
- Date
- 3. 1.2007 17:22:03
-
Johnson, B.; Oppenheim, C.: How socially connected are citers to those that they cite? (2007)
0.03
0.033098496 = sum of:
0.014990407 = product of:
0.05996163 = sum of:
0.05996163 = weight(_text_:authors in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05996163 = score(doc=839,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.01810809 = product of:
0.03621618 = sum of:
0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03621618 = score(doc=839,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report an investigation into the social and citation networks of three information scientists: David Nicholas, Peter Williams and Paul Huntington. Design/methodology/approach - Similarities between citation patterns and social closeness were identified and discussed. A total of 16 individuals in the citation network were identified and investigated using citation analysis, and a matrix formed of citations made between those in the network. Social connections between the 16 in the citation network were then investigated by means of a questionnaire, the results of which were merged into a separate matrix. These matrices were converted into visual social networks, using multidimensional scaling. A new deviance measure was devised for drawing comparisons between social and citation closeness in individual cases. Findings - Nicholas, Williams and Huntington were found to have cited 527 authors in the period 2000-2003, the 16 most cited becoming the subjects of further citation and social investigation. This comparison, along with the examination of visual representations indicates a positive correlation between social closeness and citation counts. Possible explanations for this correlation are discussed, and implications considered. Despite this correlation, the information scientists were found to cite widely outside their immediate social connections. Originality/value - Social network analysis has not been often used in combination with citation analysis to explore inter-relationships in research teams.
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.; Cardona, M.: Reference standards and reference multipliers for the comparison of the citation impact of papers published in different time periods (2010)
0.03
0.033098496 = sum of:
0.014990407 = product of:
0.05996163 = sum of:
0.05996163 = weight(_text_:authors in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05996163 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.01810809 = product of:
0.03621618 = sum of:
0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03621618 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this study, reference standards and reference multipliers are suggested as a means to compare the citation impact of earlier research publications in physics (from the period of "Little Science" in the early 20th century) with that of contemporary papers (from the period of "Big Science," beginning around 1960). For the development of time-specific reference standards, the authors determined (a) the mean citation rates of papers in selected physics journals as well as (b) the mean citation rates of all papers in physics published in 1900 (Little Science) and in 2000 (Big Science); this was accomplished by relying on the processes of field-specific standardization in bibliometry. For the sake of developing reference multipliers with which the citation impact of earlier papers can be adjusted to the citation impact of contemporary papers, they combined the reference standards calculated for 1900 and 2000 into their ratio. The use of reference multipliers is demonstrated by means of two examples involving the time adjusted h index values for Max Planck and Albert Einstein.
-
Cronin, B.: ¬The citation process : the role and significance in scientific communication (1984)
0.03
0.028972944 = product of:
0.05794589 = sum of:
0.05794589 = product of:
0.11589178 = sum of:
0.11589178 = weight(_text_:b in 7774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11589178 = score(doc=7774,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.6263131 = fieldWeight in 7774, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7774)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Cronin. B.: Some reflections on citation habits in psychology (1980)
0.03
0.028972944 = product of:
0.05794589 = sum of:
0.05794589 = product of:
0.11589178 = sum of:
0.11589178 = weight(_text_:b in 7775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11589178 = score(doc=7775,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.6263131 = fieldWeight in 7775, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7775)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Wildner, B.: Web of Science - Scopus : Auf der Suche nach Zitierungen (2006)
0.03
0.028638532 = product of:
0.057277065 = sum of:
0.057277065 = sum of:
0.028972944 = weight(_text_:b in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028972944 = score(doc=5034,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 5034, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5034)
0.02830412 = weight(_text_:22 in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02830412 = score(doc=5034,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5034, 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=5034)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 4. 6.2006 17:22:15
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.03
0.02830412 = product of:
0.05660824 = sum of:
0.05660824 = product of:
0.11321648 = sum of:
0.11321648 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11321648 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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
0.02830412 = product of:
0.05660824 = sum of:
0.05660824 = product of:
0.11321648 = sum of:
0.11321648 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11321648 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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
-
White, H.D.; Wellman, B.; Nazer, N.: Does Citation Reflect Social Structure? : Longitudinal Evidence From the "Globenet" Interdisciplinary Research Group (2004)
0.03
0.026478797 = sum of:
0.011992325 = product of:
0.0479693 = sum of:
0.0479693 = weight(_text_:authors in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0479693 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.20147301 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.014486472 = product of:
0.028972944 = sum of:
0.028972944 = weight(_text_:b in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028972944 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Many authors have posited a social component in citation, the consensus being that the citers and citees often have interpersonal as well as intellectual ties. Evidence for this belief has been rather meager, however, in part because social networks researchers have lacked bibliometric data (e.g., pairwise citation counts from online databases), and citation analysts have lacked sociometric data (e.g., pairwise measures of acquaintanceship). In 1997 Nazer extensively measured personal relationships and communication behaviors in what we call "Globenet," an international group of 16 researchers from seven disciplines that was established in 1993 to study human development. Since Globenet's membership is known, it was possible during 2002 to obtain citation records for all members in databases of the Institute for Scientific Information. This permitted examination of how members cited each other (intercited) in journal articles over the past three decades and in a 1999 book to which they all contributed. It was also possible to explore links between the intercitation data and the social and communication data. Using network-analytic techniques, we look at the growth of intercitation over time, the extent to which it follows disciplinary or interdisciplinary lines, whether it covaries with degrees of acquaintanceship, whether it reflects Globenet's organizational structure, whether it is associated with particular in-group communication patterns, and whether it is related to the cocitation of Globenet members. Results show cocitation to be a powerful predictor of intercitation in the journal articles, while being an editor or co-author is an important predictor in the book. Intellectual ties based an shared content did better as predictors than content-neutral social ties like friendship. However, interciters in Globenet communicated more than did noninterciters.
-
Cronin, B.: Bibliometrics and beyond : some thoughts on web-based citation analysis (2001)
0.03
0.025351325 = product of:
0.05070265 = sum of:
0.05070265 = product of:
0.1014053 = sum of:
0.1014053 = weight(_text_:b in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1014053 = score(doc=3890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.54802394 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
McCain, K.W.: Mapping authors in intellectual space : a technical overview (1990)
0.02
0.02398465 = product of:
0.0479693 = sum of:
0.0479693 = product of:
0.1918772 = sum of:
0.1918772 = weight(_text_:authors in 6903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1918772 = score(doc=6903,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.80589205 = fieldWeight in 6903, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6903)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Rajan, T.N.; Guha, B.; Sayanarayana, R.: Associate relationship of concepts as seen through citations and citation index (1982)
0.02
0.021729708 = product of:
0.043459415 = sum of:
0.043459415 = product of:
0.08691883 = sum of:
0.08691883 = weight(_text_:b in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08691883 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.46973482 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Larsen, B.: Exploiting citation overlaps for information retrieval : generating a boomerang effect from the network of scientific papers (2002)
0.02
0.021729708 = product of:
0.043459415 = sum of:
0.043459415 = product of:
0.08691883 = sum of:
0.08691883 = weight(_text_:b in 4175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08691883 = score(doc=4175,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.46973482 = fieldWeight in 4175, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4175)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Piternick, A.B.: Name of an author! (1992)
0.02
0.021199638 = product of:
0.042399276 = sum of:
0.042399276 = product of:
0.1695971 = sum of:
0.1695971 = weight(_text_:authors in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1695971 = score(doc=3293,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 3293, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3293)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Citing authors' names in indexes and references can cause great difficulties, as ghosts, subterfuges, and collaborative teamwork may often obscure the true begetters of published works. Presents a collection of facts and findings about authors that relate in one way or another to their names
