-
Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996)
0.06
0.056946725 = sum of:
0.0358145 = product of:
0.143258 = sum of:
0.143258 = weight(_text_:authors in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.143258 = score(doc=4215,freq=8.0), product of:
0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = 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)
0.021132221 = product of:
0.042264443 = sum of:
0.042264443 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042264443 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = 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
-
Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008)
0.05
0.049874082 = product of:
0.099748164 = sum of:
0.099748164 = sum of:
0.064527795 = weight(_text_:f in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.064527795 = score(doc=1934,freq=4.0), product of:
0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = queryNorm
0.31138954 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
0.03522037 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03522037 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Um sich einer Antwort auf die Frage anzunähern, welche Bedeutung der Nachlass eines Wissenschaftlers wie jener Paul F. Lazarsfelds (mit zahlreichen noch unveröffentlichten Schriften) für die aktuelle Forschung haben könne, kann untersucht werden, wie häufig dieser Wissenschaftler zitiert wird. Wenn ein Autor zitiert wird, wird er auch genutzt. Wird er über einen langen Zeitraum oft genutzt, ist vermutlich auch die Auseinandersetzung mit seinem Nachlass von Nutzen. Außerdem kann aufgrund der Zitierungen festgestellt werden, was aus dem Lebenswerk eines Wissenschaftlers für die aktuelle Forschung relevant erscheint. Daraus können die vordringlichen Fragestellungen in der Bearbeitung des Nachlasses abgeleitet werden. Die Aufgabe für die folgende Untersuchung lautete daher: Wie oft wird Paul F. Lazarsfeld zitiert? Dabei interessierte auch: Wer zitiert wo? Die Untersuchung wurde mit Hilfe der Meta-Datenbank "ISI Web of Knowledge" durchgeführt. In dieser wurde im "Web of Science" mit dem Werkzeug "Cited Reference Search" nach dem zitierten Autor (Cited Author) "Lazarsfeld P*" gesucht. Diese Suche ergab 1535 Referenzen (References). Werden alle Referenzen gewählt, führt dies zu 4839 Ergebnissen (Results). Dabei wurden die Datenbanken SCI-Expanded, SSCI und A&HCI verwendet. Bei dieser Suche wurden die Publikationsjahre 1941-2008 analysiert. Vor 1956 wurden allerdings nur sehr wenige Zitate gefunden: 1946 fünf, ansonsten maximal drei, 1942-1944 und 1949 überhaupt keines. Zudem ist das Jahr 2008 noch lange nicht zu Ende. (Es gab jedoch schon vor Ende März 24 Zitate!)
- Date
- 22. 6.2008 12:54:12
-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.04
0.0407827 = sum of:
0.026694553 = product of:
0.10677821 = sum of:
0.10677821 = weight(_text_:authors in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10677821 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = 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)
0.014088147 = product of:
0.028176295 = sum of:
0.028176295 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028176295 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = 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
-
Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006)
0.04
0.03903947 = sum of:
0.01790725 = product of:
0.071629 = sum of:
0.071629 = weight(_text_:authors in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.071629 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = 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)
0.021132221 = product of:
0.042264443 = sum of:
0.042264443 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042264443 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = 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
-
Model, F.: 'Citation indexing' und Rückwärtskatalogisierung' : Beispiele für Zitatendokumentation (1964)
0.04
0.036502432 = product of:
0.073004864 = sum of:
0.073004864 = product of:
0.14600973 = sum of:
0.14600973 = weight(_text_:f in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14600973 = score(doc=5002,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = queryNorm
0.7045941 = fieldWeight in 5002, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5002)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Schwartz, F.; Fang, Y.C.: Citation data analysis on hydrogeology (2007)
0.04
0.035134334 = sum of:
0.016883118 = product of:
0.06753247 = sum of:
0.06753247 = weight(_text_:authors in 433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06753247 = score(doc=433,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = queryNorm
0.28492588 = fieldWeight in 433, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=433)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.018251216 = product of:
0.036502432 = sum of:
0.036502432 = weight(_text_:f in 433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036502432 = score(doc=433,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = queryNorm
0.17614852 = fieldWeight in 433, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=433)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article explores the status of research in hydrogeology using data mining techniques. First we try to explain what citation analysis is and review some of the previous work on citation analysis. The main idea in this article is to address some common issues about citation numbers and the use of these data. To validate the use of citation numbers, we compare the citation patterns for Water Resources Research papers in the 1980s with those in the 1990s. The citation growths for highly cited authors from the 1980s are used to examine whether it is possible to predict the citation patterns for highly-cited authors in the 1990s. If the citation data prove to be steady and stable, these numbers then can be used to explore the evolution of science in hydrogeology. The famous quotation, "If you are not the lead dog, the scenery never changes," attributed to Lee Iacocca, points to the importance of an entrepreneurial spirit in all forms of endeavor. In the case of hydrogeological research, impact analysis makes it clear how important it is to be a pioneer. Statistical correlation coefficients are used to retrieve papers among a collection of 2,847 papers before and after 1991 sharing the same topics with 273 papers in 1991 in Water Resources Research. The numbers of papers before and after 1991 are then plotted against various levels of citations for papers in 1991 to compare the distributions of paper population before and after that year. The similarity metrics based on word counts can ensure that the "before" papers are like ancestors and "after" papers are descendants in the same type of research. This exercise gives us an idea of how many papers are populated before and after 1991 (1991 is chosen based on balanced numbers of papers before and after that year). In addition, the impact of papers is measured in terms of citation presented as "percentile," a relative measure based on rankings in one year, in order to minimize the effect of time.
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.03
0.028176295 = product of:
0.05635259 = sum of:
0.05635259 = product of:
0.11270518 = sum of:
0.11270518 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11270518 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = 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
0.028176295 = product of:
0.05635259 = sum of:
0.05635259 = product of:
0.11270518 = sum of:
0.11270518 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11270518 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 7. 2.2005 14:10:22
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.02
0.02490456 = product of:
0.04980912 = sum of:
0.04980912 = product of:
0.09961824 = sum of:
0.09961824 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09961824 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = 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
-
McCain, K.W.: Mapping authors in intellectual space : a technical overview (1990)
0.02
0.023876332 = product of:
0.047752663 = sum of:
0.047752663 = product of:
0.19101065 = sum of:
0.19101065 = weight(_text_:authors in 6903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.19101065 = score(doc=6903,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = 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)
-
Piternick, A.B.: Name of an author! (1992)
0.02
0.021103898 = product of:
0.042207796 = sum of:
0.042207796 = product of:
0.16883118 = sum of:
0.16883118 = weight(_text_:authors in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.16883118 = score(doc=3293,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = 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
-
Lin, X.; White, H.D.; Buzydlowski, J.: Real-time author co-citation mapping for online searching (2003)
0.02
0.020020913 = product of:
0.040041827 = sum of:
0.040041827 = product of:
0.1601673 = sum of:
0.1601673 = weight(_text_:authors in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1601673 = score(doc=1080,freq=10.0), product of:
0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
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.
-
Osareh, F.: Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis : a review of literature II (1996)
0.02
0.018251216 = product of:
0.036502432 = sum of:
0.036502432 = product of:
0.073004864 = sum of:
0.073004864 = weight(_text_:f in 7105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.073004864 = score(doc=7105,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = queryNorm
0.35229704 = fieldWeight in 7105, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7105)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Osareh, F.: Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis : a review of literature I (1996)
0.02
0.018251216 = product of:
0.036502432 = sum of:
0.036502432 = product of:
0.073004864 = sum of:
0.073004864 = weight(_text_:f in 7170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.073004864 = score(doc=7170,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = queryNorm
0.35229704 = fieldWeight in 7170, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7170)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Feitelson, D.G.; Yovel, U.: Predictive ranking of computer scientists using CiteSeer data (2004)
0.02
0.018092824 = product of:
0.03618565 = sum of:
0.03618565 = product of:
0.1447426 = sum of:
0.1447426 = weight(_text_:authors in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1447426 = score(doc=1259,freq=6.0), product of:
0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
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.
-
Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002)
0.02
0.017610185 = product of:
0.03522037 = sum of:
0.03522037 = product of:
0.07044074 = sum of:
0.07044074 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07044074 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = 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
-
White, H.D.: Authors as citers over time (2001)
0.02
0.016883118 = product of:
0.033766236 = sum of:
0.033766236 = product of:
0.13506494 = sum of:
0.13506494 = weight(_text_:authors in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13506494 = score(doc=5581,freq=16.0), product of:
0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = 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)
0.25 = 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
-
Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009)
0.01
0.014942738 = product of:
0.029885476 = sum of:
0.029885476 = product of:
0.059770953 = sum of:
0.059770953 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059770953 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = 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
-
Case, D.O.; Higgins, G.M.: How can we investigate citation behavior? : A study of reasons for citing literature in communication (2000)
0.01
0.014922708 = product of:
0.029845417 = sum of:
0.029845417 = product of:
0.119381666 = sum of:
0.119381666 = weight(_text_:authors in 4775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.119381666 = score(doc=4775,freq=8.0), product of:
0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = queryNorm
0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 4775, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4775)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Authors' motivation for citing documents are addressed through a literature review and an empirical study. Replicating an investigation in psychology, the works of 2 highly-cited authors in the discipline of communication were identified, and all of the authros who cited them during the period 1995-1997 were surveyed. The instrument posed 32 questions about why a certain document was cited, plus questions about the citer's relationship to the cited author and document. Most findings were similar to the psychology study, including a tendency to cite 'concept markers' representing a genre of work. Authors in communication were more likely to have an interpersonal connection to cited authors, and to cite literatire reviews - their most common reason for citation. 3 types of judgements about cited works were found to best predict citation: (1) that the work was novel, well-known, and a concept-marker; (2) that citing it might promote the authority of one's own work; and (3) that the work deserved criticism. Suggestions are made for further research, especially regarding the anomalous role of creativity in cited works
-
Leydesdorff, L.: Theories of citation? (1999)
0.01
0.014772727 = product of:
0.029545454 = sum of:
0.029545454 = product of:
0.11818182 = sum of:
0.11818182 = weight(_text_:authors in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11818182 = score(doc=5130,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.051991083 = queryNorm
0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Citations support the communication of specialist knowledge by allowing authors and readers to make specific selections in several contexts at the same time. In the interactions between the social network of authors and the network of their reflexive communications, a sub textual code of communication with a distributed character has emerged. Citation analysis reflects on citation practices. Reference lists are aggregated in scientometric analysis using one of the available contexts to reduce the complexity: geometrical representations of dynamic operations are reflected in corresponding theories of citation. The specific contexts represented in the modern citation can be deconstructed from the perspective of the cultural evolution of scientific communication
