Search (275 results, page 1 of 14)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996) 0.06 
    0.059597462 = sum of:
  0.0192092 = product of:
    0.1152552 = sum of:
      0.1152552 = weight(_text_:authors in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1152552 = score(doc=4215,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.19068757 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = 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)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.040388264 = sum of:
    0.0063853012 = weight(_text_:a in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0063853012 = score(doc=4215,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041828327 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4215, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4215)
    0.034002963 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034002963 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14647567 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041828327 = 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)
    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
    Type
    a
  2. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.05 
    0.05025269 = product of:
  0.10050538 = sum of:
    0.10050538 = sum of:
      0.009830814 = weight(_text_:a in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009830814 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.09067457 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09067457 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14647567 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = 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)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
    Type
    a
  3. Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992) 0.05 
    0.05025269 = product of:
  0.10050538 = sum of:
    0.10050538 = sum of:
      0.009830814 = weight(_text_:a in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009830814 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
      0.09067457 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09067457 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14647567 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = 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)
    Date
    7. 2.2005 14:10:22
    Type
    a
  4. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.05 
    0.049992863 = sum of:
  0.0096046 = product of:
    0.0576276 = sum of:
      0.0576276 = weight(_text_:authors in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0576276 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19068757 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = 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)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.040388264 = sum of:
    0.0063853012 = weight(_text_:a in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0063853012 = score(doc=201,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041828327 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
    0.034002963 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034002963 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14647567 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041828327 = 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)
    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
    Type
    a
  5. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.04 
    0.043145005 = product of:
  0.08629001 = sum of:
    0.08629001 = sum of:
      0.0061442587 = weight(_text_:a in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0061442587 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.080145754 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.080145754 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.14647567 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = 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
    Type
    a
  6. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.04 
    0.04248193 = sum of:
  0.014317693 = product of:
    0.085906155 = sum of:
      0.085906155 = weight(_text_:authors in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.085906155 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.19068757 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = 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)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.028164236 = sum of:
    0.0054955925 = weight(_text_:a in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054955925 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041828327 = queryNorm
        0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.022668643 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022668643 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14647567 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041828327 = 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
    Type
    a
  7. McCain, K.W.: Mapping authors in intellectual space : a technical overview (1990) 0.03 
    0.0325637 = sum of:
  0.025612265 = product of:
    0.15367359 = sum of:
      0.15367359 = weight(_text_:authors in 6903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15367359 = score(doc=6903,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19068757 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = 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)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.0069514355 = product of:
    0.013902871 = sum of:
      0.013902871 = weight(_text_:a in 6903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013902871 = score(doc=6903,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 6903, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6903)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  8. Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.03 
    0.031407934 = product of:
  0.06281587 = sum of:
    0.06281587 = sum of:
      0.0061442587 = weight(_text_:a in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0061442587 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.05667161 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05667161 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14647567 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = 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)
    Source
    Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
    Type
    a
  9. Piternick, A.B.: Name of an author! (1992) 0.03 
    0.026982909 = sum of:
  0.022638261 = product of:
    0.13582957 = sum of:
      0.13582957 = weight(_text_:authors in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13582957 = score(doc=3293,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19068757 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = 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)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.0043446473 = product of:
    0.008689295 = sum of:
      0.008689295 = weight(_text_:a in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008689295 = score(doc=3293,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3293, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3293)
    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
    Type
    a
  10. Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013) 0.03 
    0.026144361 = product of:
  0.052288722 = sum of:
    0.052288722 = sum of:
      0.0069514355 = weight(_text_:a in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0069514355 = score(doc=1149,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.045337286 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045337286 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14647567 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = 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)
    Abstract
    This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other.
    Date
    17.12.2013 11:02:22
    Type
    a
  11. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.03 
    0.025887005 = product of:
  0.05177401 = sum of:
    0.05177401 = sum of:
      0.0036865554 = weight(_text_:a in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0036865554 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.048087455 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048087455 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.14647567 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = 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)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
    Type
    a
  12. Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001) 0.03 
    0.025524726 = product of:
  0.051049452 = sum of:
    0.051049452 = sum of:
      0.011379328 = weight(_text_:a in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011379328 = score(doc=6920,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
      0.039670125 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039670125 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14647567 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = 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)
    Abstract
    Over a 35-year period, Irving H. Sher played a critical role in the development and implementation of the Science Citation Index and other ISI products. Trained as a biochemist, statistician, and linguist, Sher brought a unique combination of talents to ISI as Director of Quality Control and Director of Research and Development. His talents as a teacher and mentor evoked loyalty. He was a particularly inventive but self-taught programmer. In addition to the SCI, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index,
    Date
    16.12.2001 14:01:22
    Type
    a
  13. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.03 
    0.025524726 = product of:
  0.051049452 = sum of:
    0.051049452 = sum of:
      0.011379328 = weight(_text_:a in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011379328 = score(doc=40,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.039670125 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039670125 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14647567 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = 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
    Type
    a
  14. Lin, X.; White, H.D.; Buzydlowski, J.: Real-time author co-citation mapping for online searching (2003) 0.03 
    0.025163092 = sum of:
  0.021476537 = product of:
    0.12885922 = sum of:
      0.12885922 = weight(_text_:authors in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12885922 = score(doc=1080,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.19068757 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.67576104 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.0036865554 = product of:
    0.007373111 = sum of:
      0.007373111 = weight(_text_:a in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007373111 = score(doc=1080,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Author searching is traditionally based on the matching of name strings. Special characteristics of authors as personal names and subject indicators are not considered. This makes it difficult to identify a set of related authors or to group authors by subjects in retrieval systems. In this paper, we describe the design and implementation of a prototype visualization system to enhance author searching. The system, called AuthorLink, is based on author co-citation analysis and visualization mapping algorithms such as Kohonen's feature maps and Pathfinder networks. AuthorLink produces interactive author maps in real time from a database of 1.26 million records supplied by the Institute for Scientific Information. The maps show subject groupings and more fine-grained intellectual connections among authors. Through the interactive interface the user can take advantage of such information to refine queries and retrieve documents through point-and-click manipulation of the authors' names.
    Type
    a
  15. Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006) 0.02 
    0.024643706 = product of:
  0.049287412 = sum of:
    0.049287412 = sum of:
      0.009617287 = weight(_text_:a in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009617287 = score(doc=5269,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
      0.039670125 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039670125 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14647567 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = 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)
    Abstract
    This comparative case study of the diffusion and nondiffusion over time of eight theories in the social sciences uses citation analysis, citation context analysis, content analysis, surveys of editorial review boards, and personal interviews with theorists to develop a model of the theory functions that facilitate theory diffusion throughout specific intellectual communities. Unlike previous work on the diffusion of theories as innovations, this theory functions model differs in several important respects from the findings of previous studies that employed Everett Rogers's classic typology of innovation characteristics that promote diffusion. The model is also presented as a contribution to a more integrated theory of citation.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:20:01
    Type
    a
  16. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.02 
    0.022531316 = product of:
  0.04506263 = sum of:
    0.04506263 = sum of:
      0.011059666 = weight(_text_:a in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011059666 = score(doc=994,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
      0.034002963 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034002963 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14647567 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Citation rates are becoming increasingly important in judging the research quality of journals, institutions and departments, and individual faculty. This paper looks at the pattern of citations across different management science journals and over time. A stochastic model is proposed which views the generating mechanism of citations as a gamma mixture of Poisson processes generating overall a negative binomial distribution. This is tested empirically with a large sample of papers published in 1990 from six management science journals and found to fit well. The model is extended to include obsolescence, i.e., that the citation rate for a paper varies over its cited lifetime. This leads to the additional citations distribution which shows that future citations are a linear function of past citations with a time-dependent and decreasing slope. This is also verified empirically in a way that allows different obsolescence functions to be fitted to the data. Conclusions concerning the predictability of future citations, and future research in this area are discussed.
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
    Type
    a
  17. Feitelson, D.G.; Yovel, U.: Predictive ranking of computer scientists using CiteSeer data (2004) 0.02 
    0.02244952 = sum of:
  0.019408267 = product of:
    0.116449594 = sum of:
      0.116449594 = weight(_text_:authors in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.116449594 = score(doc=1259,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.19068757 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.61068267 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.0030412532 = product of:
    0.0060825064 = sum of:
      0.0060825064 = weight(_text_:a in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0060825064 = score(doc=1259,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The increasing availability of digital libraries with cross-citation data on the Internet enables new studies in bibliometrics. The paper focuses on the list of 10.000 top-cited authors in computer science available as part of CiteSeer. Using data from several consecutive lists a model of how authors accrue citations with time is constructed. By comparing the rate at which individual authors accrue citations with the average rate, predictions are made of how their ranking in the list will change in the future.
    Type
    a
  18. Ma, N.; Guan, J.; Zhao, Y.: Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis (2008) 0.02 
    0.021123176 = product of:
  0.042246353 = sum of:
    0.042246353 = sum of:
      0.008243389 = weight(_text_:a in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008243389 = score(doc=2064,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2064, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2064)
      0.034002963 = weight(_text_:22 in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034002963 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14647567 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2064, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2064)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The paper attempts to provide an alternative method for measuring the importance of scientific papers based on the Google's PageRank. The method is a meaningful extension of the common integer counting of citations and is then experimented for bringing PageRank to the citation analysis in a large citation network. It offers a more integrated picture of the publications' influence in a specific field. We firstly calculate the PageRanks of scientific papers. The distributional characteristics and comparison with the traditionally used number of citations are then analyzed in detail. Furthermore, the PageRank is implemented in the evaluation of research influence for several countries in the field of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology during the time period of 2000-2005. Finally, some advantages of bringing PageRank to the citation analysis are concluded.
    Date
    31. 7.2008 14:22:05
    Type
    a
  19. White, H.D.: Authors as citers over time (2001) 0.02 
    0.020568311 = sum of:
  0.018110609 = product of:
    0.10866365 = sum of:
      0.10866365 = weight(_text_:authors in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10866365 = score(doc=5581,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.19068757 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.56985176 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.0024577035 = product of:
    0.004915407 = sum of:
      0.004915407 = weight(_text_:a in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.004915407 = score(doc=5581,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
    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
    Type
    a
  20. Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998) 0.02 
    0.020194132 = product of:
  0.040388264 = sum of:
    0.040388264 = sum of:
      0.0063853012 = weight(_text_:a in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0063853012 = score(doc=3692,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
      0.034002963 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034002963 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14647567 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041828327 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a study to examine the patterns of self citation in 6 disciplines distributed among the physical and social sciences and humanities. Sample articles were examined to deermine the relative numbers and ages of self citations and citations to other in the bibliographies and to the exposure given to each type of citation in the text of the articles. significant differences were found in the number and age of citations between disciplines. Overall, 9% of all citations were self citations; 15% of physical sciences citations were self citations, as opposed to 6% in the social sciences and 3% in the humanities. Within disciplines, there was no significantly different amount of coverage between self citations and citations to others. Overall, it appears that a lack of substantive differences in self citation behaviour is consistent across disciplines
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:33:24
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 235
  • d 38
  • chi 2
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 272
  • el 8
  • m 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications