Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02648839 = product of:
  0.079465166 = sum of:
    0.011695079 = weight(_text_:in in 3669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011695079 = score(doc=3669,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 3669, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3669)
    0.067770086 = weight(_text_:u in 3669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067770086 = score(doc=3669,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.43413407 = fieldWeight in 3669, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3669)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Interview mit Terje Tüür-Fröhlich über Fallstricke und Fehler informetrischer Analysen, Fehlern in Zitationsdatenbanken.

0.02389699 = product of:
  0.07169097 = sum of:
    0.007796719 = weight(_text_:in in 5624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007796719 = score(doc=5624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 5624, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5624)
    0.06389425 = weight(_text_:u in 5624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06389425 = score(doc=5624,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.40930554 = fieldWeight in 5624, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5624)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Content

Der Text ist eine überarbeitete Version des von Herb, U. (2018): Zwangsehen und Bastarde : Wohin steuert Big Data die Wissenschaft? In: Information - Wissenschaft & Praxis, 69(2-3), S. 81-88. DOI:10.1515/iwp-2018-0021.

0.017658927 = product of:
  0.052976776 = sum of:
    0.007796719 = weight(_text_:in in 2701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007796719 = score(doc=2701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2701)
    0.045180056 = weight(_text_:u in 2701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045180056 = score(doc=2701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.28942272 = fieldWeight in 2701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2701)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Je höher die Ablehnungsrate eines wissenschaftlichen Journals, desto exklusiver aus Sicht von Autoren das Privileg einer akzeptierten Einreichung. Und - so die Annahme - umso größer die Qualität der publizierenden Journale. Eine Untersuchung widerspricht nun dieser landläufigen Meinung und spielt in die Hände von Kritikern wie Prof. Gerhard Fröhlich von der Universität Linz, der Ablehnungsquoten als reinen Prestigeschmuck ansieht.

0.007612115 = product of:
  0.04567269 = sum of:
    0.04567269 = product of:
      0.09134538 = sum of:
        0.09134538 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09134538 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16694428 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047673445 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.002542458 = product of:
  0.015254747 = sum of:
    0.015254747 = weight(_text_:in in 4002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015254747 = score(doc=4002,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 4002, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4002)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Zitationen spielen eine wichtige Rolle im wissenschaftlichen Diskurs, in der Recherchepraxis sowie im Bereich der Bibliometrie. In jüngster Zeit gibt es zunehmend Initiativen, die Zitationen als Open Data zur freien Nachnutzung verfügbar machen. Der Beitrag beschreibt den Stand der Entwicklung dieser Initiativen und zeigt, dass in nächster Zeit eine kritische Masse von Daten entstehen könnte, aus denen sich gerade für Bibliotheken neue Perspektiven ergeben. Als konkrete Möglichkeit zur Partizipation für Bibliotheken wird das DFG-Projekt Linked Open Citation Database (LOC-DB) vorgestellt.

Footnote

Vortrag anlässlich des Bibliothekartages 2017 in Frankfurt.

0.002542458 = product of:
  0.015254747 = sum of:
    0.015254747 = weight(_text_:in in 5719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015254747 = score(doc=5719,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 5719, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5719)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The VOSviewer software provides easy access to bibliometric mapping using data from Dimensions, Scopus and Web of Science. The properly formatted and structured citation data, and the ease in which it can be exported open up new avenues for use during citation searches and eference interviews. This paper details specific techniques for using advanced searches in Dimensions, exporting the citation data, and drawing insights from the maps produced in VOS Viewer. These search techniques and data export practices are fast and accurate enough to build into reference interviews for graduate students, faculty, and post-PhD researchers. The search results derived from them are accurate and allow a more comprehensive view of citation networks embedded in ordinary complex boolean searches.

0.0022971304 = product of:
  0.0137827825 = sum of:
    0.0137827825 = weight(_text_:in in 3106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0137827825 = score(doc=3106,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 3106, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3106)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this paper we analyze a major part of the research output of the Networked Knowledge Organization Systems (NKOS) community in the period 2000 to 2015 from a network analytical perspective. We fo- cus on the paper output presented at the European NKOS workshops in the last 15 years. Our open dataset, the "NKOS bibliography", includes 14 workshop agendas (ECDL 2000-2010, TPDL 2011-2015) and 4 special issues on NKOS (2001, 2004, 2006 and 2015) which cover 171 papers with 218 distinct authors in total. A focus of the analysis is the visualization of co-authorship networks in this interdisciplinary eld. We used standard network analytic measures like degree and betweenness centrality to de- scribe the co-authorship distribution in our NKOS dataset. We can see in our dataset that 15% (with degree=0) of authors had no co-authorship with others and 53% of them had a maximum of 3 cooperations with other authors. 32% had at least 4 co-authors for all of their papers. The NKOS co-author network in the "NKOS bibliography" is a typical co- authorship network with one relatively large component, many smaller components and many isolated co-authorships or triples.

0.0022971304 = product of:
  0.0137827825 = sum of:
    0.0137827825 = weight(_text_:in in 3863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0137827825 = score(doc=3863,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 3863, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3863)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Knowledge Organization (KO) theoretical foundations are still being developed in a continuous process of epistemological, theoretical and methodological consolidation. The remarkable growth of scientific records has stimulated the analysis of this production and the creation of instruments to evaluate the behavior of science became indispensable. We propose the Domain Analysis of KO in North America through the citation analysis of North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO) proceedings (2007 - 2015). We present the citation, co-citation and bibliographic coupling analysis to visualize and recognize the researchers that influence the scholarly communication in this domain. The most prolific authors through NASKO conferences are Smiraglia, Tennis, Green, Dousa, Grant Campbell, Pimentel, Beak, La Barre, Kipp and Fox. Regarding their theoretical references, Hjørland, Olson, Smiraglia, and Ranganathan are the authors who most inspired the event's studies. The co-citation network shows the highest frequency is between Olson and Mai, followed by Hjørland and Mai and Beghtol and Mai, consolidating Mai and Hjørland as the central authors of the theoretical references in NASKO. The strongest theoretical proximity in author bibliographic coupling network occurs between Fox and Tennis, Dousa and Tennis, Tennis and Smiraglia, Dousa and Beak, and Pimentel and Tennis, highlighting Tennis as central author, that interconnects the others in relation to KO theoretical references in NASKO. The North American chapter has demonstrated a strong scientific production as well as a high level of concern with theoretical and epistemological questions, gathering researchers from different countries, universities and knowledge areas.

Content

Beitrag bei: NASKO 2017: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities. The sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2017), June 15-16, 2017, in Champaign, IL, USA.

0.0019693794 = product of:
  0.011816275 = sum of:
    0.011816275 = weight(_text_:in in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011816275 = score(doc=855,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Publication in academic journals is a key criterion for appointment, tenure and promotion in universities. Many universities weigh publications according to the quality or impact of the journal. Traditionally, journal quality has been assessed through the ISI Journal Impact Factor (JIF). This paper proposes an alternative metric - Hirsch's h-index - and data source - Google Scholar - to assess journal impact. Using a systematic comparison between the Google Scholar h-index and the ISI JIF for a sample of 838 journals in Economics & Business, we argue that the former provides a more accurate and comprehensive measure of journal impact.

0.0019693794 = product of:
  0.011816275 = sum of:
    0.011816275 = weight(_text_:in in 5738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011816275 = score(doc=5738,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 5738, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5738)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Bibliometrische Daten werden heute zunehmend in der Evaluation von Forschungsergebnissen benutzt. Diese Anwendungen reichen von der (indirekten) Verwendung bei der Peer-Evaluation von Drittmittelanträgen über die Beurteilung von Bewerbungen in Berufungskommissionen oder Anträgen für Forschungszulagen bis hin zur systematischen Erhebung von forschungsorientierten Kennzahlen von Institutionen. Mit diesem Dokument will die DMV ihren Mitgliedern eine Diskussionsgrundlage zur Verwendung bibliometrischer Daten im Zusammenhang mit der Evaluation von Personen und Institutionen im Fachgebiet Mathematik zur Verfügung stellen, insbesondere auch im Vergleich zu anderen Fächern. Am Ende des Texts befindet sich ein Glossar, in dem die wichtigsten Begriffe kurz erläutert werden.

0.0019491798 = product of:
  0.011695079 = sum of:
    0.011695079 = weight(_text_:in in 2906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011695079 = score(doc=2906,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 2906, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2906)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The use of research impact metrics and analytics has become an integral component to many aspects of institutional assessment. Many platforms currently exist to provide such analytics, both proprietary and open source; however, the functionality of these systems may not always overlap to serve uniquely specific needs. In this paper, I describe a novel web-based platform, named Manifold, that I built to serve custom research impact assessment needs in the University of Minnesota Medical School. Built on a standard LAMP architecture, Manifold automatically pulls publication data for faculty from Scopus through APIs, calculates impact metrics through automated analytics, and dynamically generates report-like profiles that visualize those metrics. Work on this project has resulted in many lessons learned about challenges to sustainability and scalability in developing a system of such magnitude.

0.0019491798 = product of:
  0.011695079 = sum of:
    0.011695079 = weight(_text_:in in 5697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011695079 = score(doc=5697,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 5697, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5697)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Wissenschaftler wollen herausgefunden haben, dass das wichtige Ranking nach Zitierhäufigkeit und dem Journal Impact Factor fehlerhaft ist. Man sollte ja denken, dass Programme, seien sie nun KI-gestützt oder nicht, vorurteilslos nach bestimmten Kriterien etwa ein Ranking erstellen können. Aber es kommen immer wieder unbedachte Einflüsse ins Spiel, die lange Zeit unbemerkt bleiben können. Bei KI-Programmen ist in letzter Zeit klar geworden, dass die Datenauswahl eine verzerrende Rolle spielen kann, die zu seltsamen Ergebnissen führt.

Content

"Aber warum werden Titel mit Bindestrichen weniger häufig zitiert? Die Wissenschaftler vermuten, dass Autoren, wenn sie einen Artikel zitieren, möglicherweise übersehen, Bindestriche anzugeben. Dann kann in den Datenbanken keine Verlinkung mit dem Artikel mit Bindestrichen im Titel hergestellt werden, weswegen der Zitationsindex falsch wird. Das Problem scheint sich bei mehreren Bindestrichen zu verstärken, die die Irrtumshäufigkeit der Menschen erhöhen. Dass die Länge der Titel etwas mit der Zitationshäufigkeit zu tun hat, bestreiten die Wissenschaftler. Längere Titel würden einfach mit höherer Wahrscheinlichkeit mehr Bindestriche enthalten - und deswegen weniger häufig wegen der Bindestrichfehler zitiert werden. Und Artikel mit Bindestrichen sollen auch den JIF von Wissenschaftsjournalen senken."

Source

https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Bindestriche-in-Titeln-von-Artikeln-schaden-der-wissenschaftlichen-Reputation-4456177.html

0.0018377046 = product of:
  0.011026227 = sum of:
    0.011026227 = weight(_text_:in in 1563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011026227 = score(doc=1563,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 1563, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1563)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The h-index has been shown to increase in many cases mostly because of citations to rather old publications. This inertia can be circumvented by restricting the evaluation to a citation time window. Here I report results of an empirical study analyzing the evolution of the thus defined timed h-index in dependence on the length of the citation time window.

0.0016880394 = product of:
  0.010128236 = sum of:
    0.010128236 = weight(_text_:in in 3195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010128236 = score(doc=3195,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 3195, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3195)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The scientific community's growing eagerness to make research data available to the public provides libraries - with our expertise in metadata and discovery - an interesting new opportunity. This paper details the in-house creation of a "data catalog" which describes datasets ranging from population-level studies like the US Census to small, specialized datasets created by researchers at our own institution. Based on Symfony2 and Solr, the data catalog provides a powerful search interface to help researchers locate the data that can help them, and an administrative interface so librarians can add, edit, and manage metadata elements at will. This paper will outline the successes, failures, and total redos that culminated in the current manifestation of our data catalog.

0.0016880394 = product of:
  0.010128236 = sum of:
    0.010128236 = weight(_text_:in in 5057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010128236 = score(doc=5057,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 5057, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5057)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Increasingly researchers and academic research institutions are being asked to demonstrate the quality and impact of their research. Traditionally researchers have used text-based outputs to achieve these objectives. This paper discusses the introduction and subsequent review of a new service at a major Australian university, designed to encourage researchers to use media, particularly visual formats, in promoting their research. Findings from the review have highlighted the importance of researchers working in partnership with in-house media professionals to produce short, relatable, digestible, and engaging visual products. As a result of these findings, the authors have presented a four-phase media development model to assist researchers to tell their research story. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications for the institution as a whole and, more specifically, libraries.

0.0012994532 = product of:
  0.007796719 = sum of:
    0.007796719 = weight(_text_:in in 407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007796719 = score(doc=407,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 407, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=407)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Vgl.: DOI: 10.1515/dmvm-2021-0050. Auch abgedruckt u.d.T.: 'Der h-Index - "ein nutzloser bibliometrischer Index"' in Open Password Nr. 1007 vom 06.12.2021 unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzM3NCwiZDI3MzMzOTEwMzUzIiwwLDAsMzQ4LDFd.