-
Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996)
0.06
0.057256173 = sum of:
0.036009118 = product of:
0.14403647 = sum of:
0.14403647 = weight(_text_:authors in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14403647 = score(doc=4215,freq=8.0), product of:
0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = 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)
0.021247055 = product of:
0.04249411 = sum of:
0.04249411 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04249411 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = 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
-
Baird, L.M.; Oppenheim, C.: Do citations matter? (1994)
0.05
0.046077948 = sum of:
0.025462292 = product of:
0.10184917 = sum of:
0.10184917 = weight(_text_:authors in 6896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10184917 = score(doc=6896,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = queryNorm
0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 6896, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6896)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.020615656 = product of:
0.04123131 = sum of:
0.04123131 = weight(_text_:c in 6896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04123131 = score(doc=6896,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18031284 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 6896, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6896)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Citation indexes are based on the principle of authors citing previous articles of relevance. The paper demonstrates the long history of citing for precedent and notes how ISI's citation indexes differ from 'Shephards Citations'. The paper analyses some of the criticisms of citations counting, and some of the uses for which citation analysis has been employed. The paper also examines the idea of the development of an Acknowledgement Index, and concludes such an index is unlikely to be commercially viable. The paper describes a citation study of Eugene Garfield, and concludes that he may be the most heavily cited information scientist, that he is a heavy self-citer, and that the reasons why other authors cite Garfield are different from the reasons why he cites himself. The paper concludes that citation studies remain a valid methgod of analysis of individuals', institutions', or journals' impact, but need to be used with caution and in conjunction with other measures
-
Ding, Y.; Zhang, G.; Chambers, T.; Song, M.; Wang, X.; Zhai, C.: Content-based citation analysis : the next generation of citation analysis (2014)
0.04
0.04186271 = product of:
0.08372542 = sum of:
0.08372542 = sum of:
0.04123131 = weight(_text_:c in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04123131 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18031284 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
0.04249411 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04249411 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 16:52:04
-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.04
0.041004315 = sum of:
0.026839612 = product of:
0.10735845 = sum of:
0.10735845 = weight(_text_:authors in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10735845 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = 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)
0.014164704 = product of:
0.028329408 = sum of:
0.028329408 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028329408 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = 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
0.039251614 = sum of:
0.018004559 = product of:
0.072018236 = sum of:
0.072018236 = weight(_text_:authors in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.072018236 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = 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)
0.021247055 = product of:
0.04249411 = sum of:
0.04249411 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04249411 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = 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
-
Brown, C.: ¬The evolution of preprints in the scholarly communication of physicists and astronomers (2001)
0.03
0.03218351 = sum of:
0.015003799 = product of:
0.060015198 = sum of:
0.060015198 = weight(_text_:authors in 5184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060015198 = score(doc=5184,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = queryNorm
0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5184, 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=5184)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.01717971 = product of:
0.03435942 = sum of:
0.03435942 = weight(_text_:c in 5184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03435942 = score(doc=5184,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18031284 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 5184, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5184)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In one of two bibliometric papers in this issue Brown looks at formal publication and citation of Eprints as shown by the policies and practices of 37 top tier physics journals, and by citation trends in ISI's SciSearch database and Journal Citation Reports. Citation analysis was carried out if Eprint cites were indicated by editor response, instruction to authors sections, reports in the literature, or actual examination of citation lists. Total contribution to 12 archives and their citation counts in the journals were compiled. Of the 13 editors surveyed that responded, 8 published papers that had appeared in the archive. Two of these required removal from the archive at publication; two of the 13 did not publish papers that have appeared as Eprints. A review journal that solicits its contributions allowed citation of Eprints. Seven allowed citations to Eprints, but were less than enthusiastic.Nearly 36,000 citations were made to the 12 archives. Citations to the 37 journals and their impact factors remain constant over the period of 1991 to 1998. Eprint citations appear to peak about 3 years after appearance as do citations to published papers. Contribution to the archives, and their use as measured by citation, is clearly growing. Citation form and publishing policy varies from journal to journal.
-
Gabel, J.: Improving information retrieval of subjects through citation-analysis : a study (2006)
0.03
0.03218351 = sum of:
0.015003799 = product of:
0.060015198 = sum of:
0.060015198 = weight(_text_:authors in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060015198 = score(doc=225,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = queryNorm
0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 225, 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=225)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.01717971 = product of:
0.03435942 = sum of:
0.03435942 = weight(_text_:c in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03435942 = score(doc=225,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18031284 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Citation-chasing is proposed as a method of discovering additional terms to enhance subjectsearch retrieval. Subjects attached to OCLC records for cited works are compared to those attached to original citing sources. Citing sources were produced via a subject-list search in a library catalog using the LCSH "Language and languages-Origin." A subject-search was employed to avoid subjectivity in choosing sources. References from the sources were searched in OCLC where applicable, and the subject headings were retrieved. The subjects were ranked by citation-frequency and tiered into 3 groups in a Bradford-like distribution. Highly cited subjects were produced that were not revealed through the original search. A difference in relative importance among the subjects was also revealed. Broad extra-linguistic topics like evolution are more prominent than specific linguistic topics like phonology. There are exceptions, which appear somewhat predictable by the amount of imbalance in citation-representation among the 2 sources. Citation leaders were also produced for authors and secondary-source titles.
- Source
- Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
-
Johnson, B.; Oppenheim, C.: How socially connected are citers to those that they cite? (2007)
0.03
0.03218351 = sum of:
0.015003799 = product of:
0.060015198 = sum of:
0.060015198 = weight(_text_:authors in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060015198 = score(doc=839,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = 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)
0.01717971 = product of:
0.03435942 = sum of:
0.03435942 = weight(_text_:c in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03435942 = score(doc=839,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18031284 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, 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.
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.03
0.028329408 = product of:
0.056658816 = sum of:
0.056658816 = product of:
0.11331763 = sum of:
0.11331763 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11331763 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = 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
0.028329408 = product of:
0.056658816 = sum of:
0.056658816 = product of:
0.11331763 = sum of:
0.11331763 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11331763 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = 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
-
Huber, C.: Web of science (1999)
0.03
0.027487539 = product of:
0.054975078 = sum of:
0.054975078 = product of:
0.109950155 = sum of:
0.109950155 = weight(_text_:c in 3595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.109950155 = score(doc=3595,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18031284 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = queryNorm
0.6097744 = fieldWeight in 3595, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3595)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.03
0.025039895 = product of:
0.05007979 = sum of:
0.05007979 = product of:
0.10015958 = sum of:
0.10015958 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10015958 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = 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
0.024006078 = product of:
0.048012156 = sum of:
0.048012156 = product of:
0.19204862 = sum of:
0.19204862 = weight(_text_:authors in 6903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.19204862 = score(doc=6903,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = 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
0.021218577 = product of:
0.042437155 = sum of:
0.042437155 = product of:
0.16974862 = sum of:
0.16974862 = weight(_text_:authors in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.16974862 = score(doc=3293,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = 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
0.020129709 = product of:
0.040259417 = sum of:
0.040259417 = product of:
0.16103767 = sum of:
0.16103767 = weight(_text_:authors in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.16103767 = score(doc=1080,freq=10.0), product of:
0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = 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.
-
Feitelson, D.G.; Yovel, U.: Predictive ranking of computer scientists using CiteSeer data (2004)
0.02
0.01819114 = product of:
0.03638228 = sum of:
0.03638228 = product of:
0.14552912 = sum of:
0.14552912 = weight(_text_:authors in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14552912 = score(doc=1259,freq=6.0), product of:
0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = 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
0.01770588 = product of:
0.03541176 = sum of:
0.03541176 = product of:
0.07082352 = sum of:
0.07082352 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07082352 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = 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
0.01697486 = product of:
0.03394972 = sum of:
0.03394972 = product of:
0.13579889 = sum of:
0.13579889 = weight(_text_:authors in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13579889 = score(doc=5581,freq=16.0), product of:
0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = 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)
0.02
0.015023937 = product of:
0.030047875 = sum of:
0.030047875 = product of:
0.06009575 = sum of:
0.06009575 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06009575 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = 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)
0.02
0.015003799 = product of:
0.030007599 = sum of:
0.030007599 = product of:
0.120030396 = sum of:
0.120030396 = weight(_text_:authors in 4775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.120030396 = score(doc=4775,freq=8.0), product of:
0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052273605 = 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
