Search (80 results, page 1 of 4)

0.11732777 = sum of:
  0.02687417 = product of:
    0.10749668 = sum of:
      0.10749668 = weight(_text_:authors in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10749668 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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)
  0.0904536 = sum of:
    0.062087722 = weight(_text_:r in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062087722 = score(doc=5171,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05234091 = queryNorm
        0.358346 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.028365882 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028365882 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05234091 = 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

0.057329893 = sum of:
  0.036055483 = product of:
    0.14422193 = sum of:
      0.14422193 = weight(_text_:authors in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14422193 = score(doc=4215,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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)
  0.021274412 = product of:
    0.042548824 = sum of:
      0.042548824 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042548824 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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

0.039302155 = sum of:
  0.018027741 = product of:
    0.072110966 = sum of:
      0.072110966 = weight(_text_:authors in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.072110966 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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)
  0.021274412 = product of:
    0.042548824 = sum of:
      0.042548824 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042548824 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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

0.035846364 = product of:
  0.07169273 = sum of:
    0.07169273 = product of:
      0.14338546 = sum of:
        0.14338546 = weight(_text_:r in 1115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14338546 = score(doc=1115,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.8275646 = fieldWeight in 1115, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1115)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

r

0.030865122 = sum of:
  0.015023118 = product of:
    0.06009247 = sum of:
      0.06009247 = weight(_text_:authors in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06009247 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2266, 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=2266)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.015842004 = product of:
    0.031684007 = sum of:
      0.031684007 = weight(_text_:r in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031684007 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The term author co-citation is defined and classified according to four distinct forms: the pure first-author co-citation, the pure author co-citation, the general author co-citation, and the special co-authorlco-citation. Each form can be used to obtain one count in an author co-citation study, based an a binary counting rule, which either recognizes the co-citedness of two authors in a given reference list (1) or does not (0). Most studies using author co-citations have relied solely an first-author cocitation counts as evidence of an author's oeuvre or body of work contributed to a research field. In this article, we argue that an author's contribution to a selected field of study should not be limited, but should be based an his/her complete list of publications, regardless of author ranking. We discuss the implications associated with using each co-citation form and show where simple first-author co-citations fit within our classification scheme. Examples are given to substantiate each author co-citation form defined in our classification, including a set of sample Dialog(TM) searches using references extracted from the SciSearch database.

0.030865122 = sum of:
  0.015023118 = product of:
    0.06009247 = sum of:
      0.06009247 = weight(_text_:authors in 4628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06009247 = score(doc=4628,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 4628, 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=4628)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.015842004 = product of:
    0.031684007 = sum of:
      0.031684007 = weight(_text_:r in 4628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031684007 = score(doc=4628,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 4628, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4628)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Literature practices represent the process leading up to the citation of a source, and consist of the selection, reading and citing of sources. The purpose of this paper is to explore possible factors that might influence researchers during this process and discover possible consequences of researchers' citation behaviours. Design/methodology/approach In this exploratory study, various factors which could influence literature practices were explored via a questionnaire amongst 112 researchers. Participants were first authors of articles published in 2016 in one of five different journals within the disciplines of experimental psychology, educational sciences and social psychology. Academic positions of the participants ranged from PhD student to full professor. Findings Frequencies and percentages showed that researchers seemed to be influenced in their literature practices by various factors, such as editors suggesting articles and motivation to cite. Additionally, a high percentage of researchers reported taking shortcuts when citing articles (e.g. using secondary citations and reading selectively). Logistic regression did not reveal a clear relationship between academic work experience and research practices. Practical implications Seeing that researchers seem to be influenced by a variety of factors in their literature practices, the scientific community might benefit from better citation practices and guidelines in order to provide more structure to the process of literature practices. Originality/value This paper provides first insights into researchers' literature practices. Possible reasons for problems with citation accuracy and replicating research findings are highlighted. Opportunities for further research on the topic of citation behaviours are presented.

0.028365882 = product of:
  0.056731764 = sum of:
    0.056731764 = product of:
      0.11346353 = sum of:
        0.11346353 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11346353 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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

0.028365882 = product of:
  0.056731764 = sum of:
    0.056731764 = product of:
      0.11346353 = sum of:
        0.11346353 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11346353 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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

0.025072135 = product of:
  0.05014427 = sum of:
    0.05014427 = product of:
      0.10028854 = sum of:
        0.10028854 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10028854 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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

0.024692096 = sum of:
  0.012018493 = product of:
    0.048073974 = sum of:
      0.048073974 = weight(_text_:authors in 3093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048073974 = score(doc=3093,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.20147301 = fieldWeight in 3093, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3093)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.012673602 = product of:
    0.025347205 = sum of:
      0.025347205 = weight(_text_:r in 3093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025347205 = score(doc=3093,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.14629413 = fieldWeight in 3093, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3093)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

How do authors refer to Web-based information sources in their formal scientific publications? It is not yet weIl known how scientists and scholars actually include new types of information sources, available through the new media, in their published work. This article reports an a comparative study of the lists of references in 38 scientific journals in five different scientific and social scientific fields. The fields are sociology, library and information science, biochemistry and biotechnology, neuroscience, and the mathematics of computing. As is weIl known, references, citations, and hyperlinks play different roles in academic publishing and communication. Our study focuses an hyperlinks as attributes of references in formal scholarly publications. The study developed and applied a method to analyze the differential roles of publishing media in the analysis of scientific and scholarly literature references. The present secondary databases that include reference and citation data (the Web of Science) cannot be used for this type of research. By the automated processing and analysis of the full text of scientific and scholarly articles, we were able to extract the references and hyperlinks contained in these references in relation to other features of the scientific and scholarly literature. Our findings show that hyperlinking references are indeed, as expected, abundantly present in the formal literature. They also tend to cite more recent literature than the average reference. The large majority of the references are to Web instances of traditional scientific journals. Other types of Web-based information sources are less weIl represented in the lists of references, except in the case of pure e-journals. We conclude that this can be explained by taking the role of the publisher into account. Indeed, it seems that the shift from print-based to electronic publishing has created new roles for the publisher. By shaping the way scientific references are hyperlinking to other information sources, the publisher may have a large impact an the availability of scientific and scholarly information.

0.024036987 = product of:
  0.048073974 = sum of:
    0.048073974 = product of:
      0.1922959 = sum of:
        0.1922959 = weight(_text_:authors in 6903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1922959 = score(doc=6903,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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)

0.022178805 = product of:
  0.04435761 = sum of:
    0.04435761 = product of:
      0.08871522 = sum of:
        0.08871522 = weight(_text_:r in 496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08871522 = score(doc=496,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.51202947 = fieldWeight in 496, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=496)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.021245897 = product of:
  0.042491794 = sum of:
    0.042491794 = product of:
      0.16996717 = sum of:
        0.16996717 = weight(_text_:authors in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16996717 = score(doc=3293,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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

0.020155627 = product of:
  0.040311255 = sum of:
    0.040311255 = product of:
      0.16124502 = sum of:
        0.16124502 = weight(_text_:authors in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16124502 = score(doc=1080,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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.

0.019010404 = product of:
  0.03802081 = sum of:
    0.03802081 = product of:
      0.07604162 = sum of:
        0.07604162 = weight(_text_:r in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07604162 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.4388824 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.018214563 = product of:
  0.036429126 = sum of:
    0.036429126 = product of:
      0.1457165 = sum of:
        0.1457165 = weight(_text_:authors in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1457165 = score(doc=1259,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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.

0.017728677 = product of:
  0.035457354 = sum of:
    0.035457354 = product of:
      0.07091471 = sum of:
        0.07091471 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07091471 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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

0.016996717 = product of:
  0.033993434 = sum of:
    0.033993434 = product of:
      0.13597374 = sum of:
        0.13597374 = weight(_text_:authors in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13597374 = score(doc=5581,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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

0.015043282 = product of:
  0.030086564 = sum of:
    0.030086564 = product of:
      0.060173128 = sum of:
        0.060173128 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060173128 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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

0.015023118 = product of:
  0.030046236 = sum of:
    0.030046236 = product of:
      0.12018494 = sum of:
        0.12018494 = weight(_text_:authors in 4775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12018494 = score(doc=4775,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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