Search (25 results, page 1 of 2)

0.032002483 = product of:
  0.048003722 = sum of:
    0.027719175 = weight(_text_:on in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027719175 = score(doc=2358,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 2358, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2358)
    0.020284547 = product of:
      0.040569093 = sum of:
        0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040569093 = score(doc=2358,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2358, 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=2358)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A naïve user seeking introductory information on a topic may perceive a domain as it is shown by the search results in a database; however, inconsistencies in indexing can misrepresent the full picture of the domain by including irrelevant documents or omitting relevant ones, sometimes inexplicably. A bibliometric analysis was conducted on the domain of ethics in knowledge organization in the World of Science (WoS) and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA) databases to discern how it is being presented by search results in those databases and to attempt to determine why inconsistencies occurred.

Content

Beitrag anlässlich: Proceedings of the 3rd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Knowledge Organization, May 28-29, 2015, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_42_2015_5.

Date

17. 2.2018 16:50:22

0.028611436 = product of:
  0.042917155 = sum of:
    0.02263261 = weight(_text_:on in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02263261 = score(doc=1540,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 1540, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1540)
    0.020284547 = product of:
      0.040569093 = sum of:
        0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040569093 = score(doc=1540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1540, 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=1540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Hundreds of scholarly studies have investigated various aspects of Wikipedia. Although a number of literature reviews have provided overviews of this vast body of research, none has specifically focused on the readers of Wikipedia and issues concerning its readership. In this systematic literature review, we review 99 studies to synthesize current knowledge regarding the readership of Wikipedia and provide an analysis of research methods employed. The scholarly research has found that Wikipedia is popular not only for lighter topics such as entertainment but also for more serious topics such as health and legal information. Scholars, librarians, and students are common users, and Wikipedia provides a unique opportunity for educating students in digital literacy. We conclude with a summary of key findings, implications for researchers, and implications for the Wikipedia community.

Date

18.11.2014 13:22:03

0.024192145 = product of:
  0.036288217 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 3460, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3460)
    0.020284547 = product of:
      0.040569093 = sum of:
        0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040569093 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3460, 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=3460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This study explores how and why people participate in collaborative knowledge-building practices in the context of Wikipedia. Based on a survey of 223 Wikipedians, this study examines the relationship between motivations, internal cognitive beliefs, social-relational factors, and knowledge-sharing intentions. Results from structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis reveal that attitudes, knowledge self-efficacy, and a basic norm of generalized reciprocity have significant and direct relationships with knowledge-sharing intentions. Altruism (an intrinsic motivator) is positively related to attitudes toward knowledge sharing, whereas reputation (an extrinsic motivator) is not a significant predictor of attitude. The study also reveals that a social-relational factor, namely, a sense of belonging, is related to knowledge-sharing intentions indirectly through different motivational and social factors such as altruism, subjective norms, knowledge self-efficacy, and generalized reciprocity. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Date

1. 6.2010 10:13:22

0.009940362 = product of:
  0.029821085 = sum of:
    0.029821085 = weight(_text_:on in 4916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029821085 = score(doc=4916,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.271686 = fieldWeight in 4916, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4916)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Many information portals are adding social features with hopes of enhancing the overall user experience. Invitations to join and welcome pages that highlight these social features are expected to encourage use and participation. While this approach is widespread and seems plausible, the effect of providing and highlighting social features remains to be tested. We studied the effects of emphasizing social features on users' response to invitations, their decisions to join, their willingness to provide profile information, and their engagement with the portal's social features. The results of a quasi-experiment found no significant effect of social emphasis in invitations on receivers' responsiveness. However, users receiving invitations highlighting social benefits were less likely to join the portal and provide profile information. Social emphasis in the initial welcome page for the site also was found to have a significant effect on whether individuals joined the portal, how much profile information they provided and shared, and how much they engaged with social features on the site. Unexpectedly, users who were welcomed in a social manner were less likely to join and provided less profile information; they also were less likely to engage with social features of the portal. This suggests that even in online contexts where social activity is an increasingly common feature, highlighting the presence of social features may not always be the optimal presentation strategy.

0.009239726 = product of:
  0.027719175 = sum of:
    0.027719175 = weight(_text_:on in 391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027719175 = score(doc=391,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 391, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=391)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Wikipedia is frequently viewed as an inclusive medium. But inclusivity within this online encyclopedia is not a simple matter of just allowing anyone to contribute. In its quest for legitimacy as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia relies on outsiders to judge claims championed by rival editors. In choosing these experts, Wikipedians define the boundaries of acceptable comment on any given subject. Inclusivity then becomes a matter of how the boundaries of expertise are drawn. In this article I examine the nature of these boundaries and the implications they have for inclusivity and credibility as revealed through the talk pages produced and sources used by a particular subset of Wikipedia's creators-those involved in writing articles on the topic of Philippine history.

0.009239726 = product of:
  0.027719175 = sum of:
    0.027719175 = weight(_text_:on in 2134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027719175 = score(doc=2134,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 2134, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2134)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Patient portals have the potential to provide content that is specifically tailored to a patient's information needs based on diagnoses and other factors. In this work, we conducted a survey of 41 lung cancer patients at an outpatient lung cancer clinic at the medical center of the University of California, Los Angeles, to gain insight into these perceived information needs and opinions on the design of a portal to fulfill them. We found that patients requested access to information related to diagnosis and imaging, with more than half of the patients reporting that they did not anticipate an increase in anxiety due to access to medical record information via a portal. We also found that patient educational background did not lead to a significant difference in desires for explanations of reports and definitions of terms.

0.009239726 = product of:
  0.027719175 = sum of:
    0.027719175 = weight(_text_:on in 3782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027719175 = score(doc=3782,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 3782, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3782)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

With the rise of Wikipedia as a first-stop source for scientific information, it is important to understand whether Wikipedia draws upon the research that scientists value most. Here we identify the 250 most heavily used journals in each of 26 research fields (4,721 journals, 19.4M articles) indexed by the Scopus database, and test whether topic, academic status, and accessibility make articles from these journals more or less likely to be referenced on Wikipedia. We find that a journal's academic status (impact factor) and accessibility (open access policy) both strongly increase the probability of it being referenced on Wikipedia. Controlling for field and impact factor, the odds that an open access journal is referenced on the English Wikipedia are 47% higher compared to paywall journals. These findings provide evidence is that a major consequence of open access policies is to significantly amplify the diffusion of science, through an intermediary like Wikipedia, to a broad audience.

0.008890929 = product of:
  0.026672786 = sum of:
    0.026672786 = weight(_text_:on in 1624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026672786 = score(doc=1624,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 1624, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1624)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Wikipedia may be the best-developed attempt thus far to gather all human knowledge in one place. Its accomplishments in this regard have made it a point of inquiry for researchers from different fields of knowledge. A decade of research has thrown light on many aspects of the Wikipedia community, its processes, and its content. However, due to the variety of fields inquiring about Wikipedia and the limited synthesis of the extensive research, there is little consensus on many aspects of Wikipedia's content as an encyclopedic collection of human knowledge. This study addresses the issue by systematically reviewing 110 peer-reviewed publications on Wikipedia content, summarizing the current findings, and highlighting the major research trends. Two major streams of research are identified: the quality of Wikipedia content (including comprehensiveness, currency, readability, and reliability) and the size of Wikipedia. Moreover, we present the key research trends in terms of the domains of inquiry, research design, data source, and data gathering methods. This review synthesizes scholarly understanding of Wikipedia content and paves the way for future studies.

0.008801571 = product of:
  0.026404712 = sum of:
    0.026404712 = weight(_text_:on in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026404712 = score(doc=3054,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Wikipedia is increasingly an important source of information for many. Hence, it is important to develop an understanding of how it is situated within society and the wider roles it is called onto perform. This article argues that one of these roles is as a depository of collective memory. Building on the work of Pentzold, I present a case study of the English Wikipedia article on the Vietnam War to demonstrate that the article, or more accurately, its talk pages, provide a forum for the contestation of collective memory. I further argue that this function is one that should be supported by libraries as they position themselves within a rapidly changing digital world.

0.007888435 = product of:
  0.023665305 = sum of:
    0.023665305 = product of:
      0.04733061 = sum of:
        0.04733061 = weight(_text_:22 in 1492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04733061 = score(doc=1492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1492, 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=1492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 9.2014 18:56:46

0.0075442037 = product of:
  0.02263261 = sum of:
    0.02263261 = weight(_text_:on in 1610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02263261 = score(doc=1610,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 1610, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1610)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, includes biographies of notable people. However, because it is jointly written by many contributors, it is subject to constant manipulation by contributors attempting to add biographies of non-notable people. Over time, Wikipedia has developed inclusion criteria for notable people (e.g., receiving a significant award) based on which newly contributed biographies are evaluated. In this paper we present and analyze a set of simple indicators that can be used to predict which article will eventually be accepted. These indicators do not refer to the content itself, but to meta-content features (such as the number of categories that the biography is associated with) and to author-based features (such as if it is a first-time author). By training a classifier on these features, we successfully reached a high predictive performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve [AUC] of 0.97) even though we overlooked the actual biography text.

0.0067615155 = product of:
  0.020284547 = sum of:
    0.020284547 = product of:
      0.040569093 = sum of:
        0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 1821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040569093 = score(doc=1821,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1821, 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=1821)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.0062868367 = product of:
  0.01886051 = sum of:
    0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01886051 = score(doc=3633,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 3633, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3633)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to discuss the second edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica (2007) within its broader historical context of the production of encyclopedias in the twentieth and the twenty-first centuries. The paper contrasts the 2007 edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica to the Jewish Encyclopedia published between 1901 and 1905, and to the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica published in 1972; then contrasts the 2007 edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica to Wikipedia and to other projects of online encyclopedias. Design/methodology/approach - The paper provides a personal reflective review of the sources in question. Findings - That Encyclopaedia Judaica in its latest edition does not adequately replace the original first edition in terms of depth of scholarly work. It is considered that the model offered by Wikipedia could work well for the Encyclopaedia Judaica, allowing it to retain the core of the expert knowledge, and at the same time channel the energy of volunteer editors which has made Wikipedia such a success. Practical implications - The paper is of interest to those with an interest in encyclopedia design or Jewish studies. Originality/value - This paper provides a unique reflection on the latest edition of the encyclopedia and considers future models for its publication based on traditional and non-traditional methods.

0.0062868367 = product of:
  0.01886051 = sum of:
    0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 4941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01886051 = score(doc=4941,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 4941, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4941)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) 2008, we apply mapping techniques previously developed for mapping journal structures in the Science and Social Sciences Citation Indices. Citation relations among the 110,718 records were aggregated at the level of 1,157 journals specific to the A&HCI, and the journal structures are questioned on whether a cognitive structure can be reconstructed and visualized. Both cosine-normalization (bottom up) and factor analysis (top down) suggest a division into approximately 12 subsets. The relations among these subsets are explored using various visualization techniques. However, we were not able to retrieve this structure using the Institute for Scientific Information Subject Categories, including the 25 categories that are specific to the A&HCI. We discuss options for validation such as against the categories of the Humanities Indicators of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the panel structure of the European Reference Index for the Humanities, and compare our results with the curriculum organization of the Humanities Section of the College of Letters and Sciences of the University of California at Los Angeles as an example of institutional organization.

0.0062868367 = product of:
  0.01886051 = sum of:
    0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01886051 = score(doc=369,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 369, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=369)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study analyzes the search behavior of Dutch-speaking nursing students with a nonnative knowledge of English who searched for information in MEDLINE/PubMed about a specific theme in nursing. We examine whether and to what extent their search efficiency is affected by their language skills. Our task-oriented approach focuses on three stages of the information retrieval process: need articulation, query formulation, and relevance judgment. The test participants completed a pretest questionnaire, which gave us information about their overall experience with the search system and their self-reported computer and language skills. The students were briefly introduced to the use of PubMed and MeSH (medical subject headings) before they conducted their keyword-driven subject search. We assessed the search results in terms of recall and precision, and also analyzed the search process. After the search task, a satisfaction survey and a language test were completed. We conclude that language skills have an impact on the search results. We hypothesize that language support might improve the efficiency of searches conducted by Dutch-speaking users of PubMed.

0.0062868367 = product of:
  0.01886051 = sum of:
    0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01886051 = score(doc=2846,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 2846, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2846)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0062868367 = product of:
  0.01886051 = sum of:
    0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 5093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01886051 = score(doc=5093,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 5093, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5093)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Controversy is a complex concept that has been attracting attention of scholars from diverse fields. In the era of Internet and social media, detecting controversy and controversial concepts by the means of automatic methods is especially important. Web searchers could be alerted when the contents they consume are controversial or when they attempt to acquire information on disputed topics. Presenting users with the indications and explanations of the controversy should offer them chance to see the "wider picture" rather than letting them obtain one-sided views. In this work we first introduce a formal model of controversy as the basis of computational approaches to detecting controversial concepts. Then we propose a classification based method for automatic detection of controversial articles and categories in Wikipedia. Next, we demonstrate how to use the obtained results for the estimation of the controversy level of search queries. The proposed method can be incorporated into search engines as a component responsible for detection of queries related to controversial topics. The method is independent of the search engine's retrieval and search results recommendation algorithms, and is therefore unaffected by a possible filter bubble. Our approach can be also applied in Wikipedia or other knowledge bases for supporting the detection of controversy and content maintenance. Finally, we believe that our results could be useful for social science researchers for understanding the complex nature of controversy and in fostering their studies.

0.0062868367 = product of:
  0.01886051 = sum of:
    0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 5471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01886051 = score(doc=5471,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 5471, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5471)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose Chemical databases have had a significant impact on the way scientists search for and use information. The purpose of this paper is to spark informed discussion and fuel debate on the issue of citations to chemical databases. Design/methodology/approach A citation analysis to four major chemical databases was undertaken to examine resource coverage and impact in the scientific literature. Two commercial databases (SciFinder and Reaxys) and two public databases (PubChem and ChemSpider) were analyzed using the "Cited Reference Search" in the Science Citation Index Expanded from the Web of Science (WoS) database. Citations to these databases between 2000 and 2016 (inclusive) were evaluated by document types and publication growth curves. A review of the distribution trends of chemical databases in peer-reviewed articles was conducted through a citation count analysis by country, organization, journal and WoS category. Findings In total, 862 scholarly articles containing a citation to one or more of the four databases were identified as only steadily increasing since 2000. The study determined that authors at academic institutions worldwide reference chemical databases in high-impact journals from notable publishers and mainly in the field of chemistry. Originality/value The research is a first attempt to evaluate the practice of citation to major chemical databases in the scientific literature. This paper proposes that citing chemical databases gives merit and recognition to the resources as well as credibility and validity to the scholarly communication process and also further discusses recommendations for citing and referencing databases.

0.0053345575 = product of:
  0.016003672 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 3433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=3433,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 3433, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3433)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0053345575 = product of:
  0.016003672 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 4764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=4764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4764)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)