Search (51 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[1990 TO 2000}
  1. Schwartz, C.A.: ¬The rise and fall of uncitedness (1997) 0.08 
    0.07968313 = product of:
  0.13280521 = sum of:
    0.09321985 = weight(_text_:index in 7658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09321985 = score(doc=7658,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.50173557 = fieldWeight in 7658, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7658)
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 7658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=7658,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 7658, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7658)
    0.011625858 = product of:
      0.034877572 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 7658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=7658,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 7658, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7658)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Large scale uncitedness refers to the significant proportion of articles that do not receive a single citation within 5 years of publication. Notes the brief and troubled history of this area of inquiry, which was prone to miscalculation, misinterpretation, and politicization. Reassesses large scale uncitedness as both a general phenomenon in the scholarly communication system (with data for the physical sciences, social sciences and humanities) and a case study of library and information science, where its rate was reported to be 72%. The study was in 4 parts: examination of the problem of disaggregation in the study of uncitedness; review of the reaction of the popular press and scholars to uncitedness; a case study of uncitedness in C&RL; and a brief summary with suggestions for further research. Data disaggregation was found to be essential in interpreting citation data from tools such as Science Citation Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index; which do not differentiate between articles and marginal materials (book reviews, letters, obituaries). Stresses the dangers of conclusions from uncitedness data
    Source
    College and research libraries. 58(1997) no.1, S.19-29
  2. Marx, W.: Wie mißt man Forschungsqualität? : der Science Citation Index - ein Maßstab für die Bewertung (1996) 0.06 
    0.055505704 = product of:
  0.13876426 = sum of:
    0.10148491 = weight(_text_:index in 5036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10148491 = score(doc=5036,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5462205 = fieldWeight in 5036, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5036)
    0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 5036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03727935 = score(doc=5036,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 5036, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5036)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Ein überfordertes Gutachter-System, knapper fließende Forschungsgelder sowie die starke Faszination von Ranglisten bewirken zunehmend den Einsatz bibliometrischer Methoden zur Messung von Forschungsqualität. Grundlage der meisten Bewertungen ist der Science Citation Index, der nun auch in der Version als Online-Datenbank für umfangreiche Analysen genutzt werden kann. Erweiterungen der Retrievalsprache beim Host STN International ermöglichen statistische Analysen, die bisher nur dem SCI-Hersteller und wenigen Spezialisten vorbehalten waren. Voraussetzung für eine sinnvolle Anwendung sind vor allem die Wahl geeigneter Selektionskriterien sowie die sorgfältige Interpretation der Ergebnisse im Rahmen der Grenzen dieser Methoden
  3. Wouters, P.: ¬The signs of science (1998) 0.04 
    0.043616004 = product of:
  0.10904001 = sum of:
    0.07176066 = weight(_text_:index in 1023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07176066 = score(doc=1023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 1023, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1023)
    0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 1023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03727935 = score(doc=1023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 1023, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1023)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Since the 'Science Citation Index' emerged within the system of scientific communication in 1964, an intense controversy about its character has been raging: in what sense can citation analysis be trusted? This debate can be characterized as the confrontation of different perspectives on science. Discusses the citation representation of science: the way the citation creates a new reality of as well as in the world of science; the main features of this reality; and some implications for science and science policy
  4. Falkingham, L.T.; Reeves, R.: Context analysis : a technique for analysing research in a field, applied to literature on the management of R&D at the section level (1998) 0.04 
    0.037330892 = product of:
  0.09332723 = sum of:
    0.07988574 = weight(_text_:context in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07988574 = score(doc=3689,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.4533211 = fieldWeight in 3689, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3689)
    0.013441487 = product of:
      0.04032446 = sum of:
        0.04032446 = weight(_text_:22 in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04032446 = score(doc=3689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3689, 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=3689)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Context analysis is a new method for appraising a body of publications. the process consists of creating a database of attributes assigned to each paper by the reviewer and then looking for interesting relationships in the data. Assigning the attributes requires an understanding of the subject matter of the papers. Presents findings about one particular research field, Management of R&D at the Section Level. The findings support the view that this body of academic publications does not meet the needs of practitioner R&D managers. Discusses practical aspects of how to apply the method in other fields
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:18:46
  5. Moed, H.F.; Leeuwen, T.N. van; Reedijk, J.: ¬A new classification system to describe the ageing of scientific journals and their impact factors (1998) 0.04 
    0.03520872 = product of:
  0.0880218 = sum of:
    0.050742455 = weight(_text_:index in 4719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050742455 = score(doc=4719,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27311024 = fieldWeight in 4719, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4719)
    0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 4719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03727935 = score(doc=4719,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 4719, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4719)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    During the past decades, journal impact data obtained from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) have gained relevance in library management, research management and research evaluation. Hence, both information scientists and bibliometricians share the responsibility towards the users of the JCR to analyse the reliability and validity of its measures thoroughly, to indicate pitfalls and to suggest possible improvements. In this article, ageing patterns are examined in 'formal' use or impact of all scientific journals processed for the Science Citation Index (SCI) during 1981-1995. A new classification system of journals in terms of their ageing characteristics is introduced. This system has been applied to as many as 3,098 journals covered by the Science Citation Index. Following an earlier suggestion by Glnzel and Schoepflin, a maturing and a decline phase are distinguished. From an analysis across all subfields it has been concluded that ageing characteristics are primarily specific to the individual journal rather than to the subfield, while the distribution of journals in terms of slowly or rapidly maturing or declining types is specific to the subfield. It is shown that the cited half life (CHL), printed in the JCR, is an inappropriate measure of decline of journal impact. Following earlier work by Line and others, a more adequate parameter of decline is calculated taking into account the size of annual volumes during a range of fifteen years. For 76 per cent of SCI journals the relative difference between this new parameter and the ISI CHL exceeds 5 per cent. The current JCR journal impact factor is proven to be biased towards journals revealing a rapid maturing and decline in impact. Therefore, a longer term impact factor is proposed, as well as a normalised impact statistic, taking into account citation characteristics of the research subfield covered by a journal and the type of documents published in it. When these new measures are combined with the proposed ageing classification system, they provide a significantly improved picture of a journal's impact to that obtained from the JCR.
  6. Tonta, Y.: Scholarly communication and the use of networked information sources (1996) 0.04 
    0.03505398 = product of:
  0.08763495 = sum of:
    0.07611368 = weight(_text_:index in 6389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07611368 = score(doc=6389,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 6389, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6389)
    0.011521274 = product of:
      0.03456382 = sum of:
        0.03456382 = weight(_text_:22 in 6389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456382 = score(doc=6389,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6389, 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=6389)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Examines the use of networked information sources in scholarly communication. Networked information sources are defined broadly to cover: documents and images stored on electronic network hosts; data files; newsgroups; listservs; online information services and electronic periodicals. Reports results of a survey to determine how heavily, if at all, networked information sources are cited in scholarly printed periodicals published in 1993 and 1994. 27 printed periodicals, representing a wide range of subjects and the most influential periodicals in their fields, were identified through the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index Journal Citation Reports. 97 articles were selected for further review and references, footnotes and bibliographies were checked for references to networked information sources. Only 2 articles were found to contain such references. Concludes that, although networked information sources facilitate scholars' work to a great extent during the research process, scholars have yet to incorporate such sources in the bibliographies of their published articles
    Source
    IFLA journal. 22(1996) no.3, S.240-245
  7. Glänzel, W.: Visual bibliometrics : eine visuelle Oberfläche zur Erweiterung der Nutzungsmöglichkeiten bibliographischer Datenbanken (1996) 0.03 
    0.025116233 = product of:
  0.12558116 = sum of:
    0.12558116 = weight(_text_:index in 6110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12558116 = score(doc=6110,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.67591333 = fieldWeight in 6110, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6110)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    In einer früheren Studie wurde bereits der 'informationelle Mehrwert' von bibliographischen Datenbanken durch bibliometrische Nutzung untersucht. Im folgenden soll nun eine visuelle Oberfläche vorgestellt werden, die mit Hilfe einer bibliometrischen 'Sekundärdatenbank' einerseits die Nutzungsmöglichkeiten der zugrundeliegenden bibliographischen Datenbanken vor allem in den Bereichen Wissenschaftsinformation, Forschungsevaluation und Wissenschaftspolitik erweitern soll, andererseits aber auch eine Rückkopplung zu den Aufgaben des traditionellen Retrievals erlaubt. Die visuelle Oberfläche 'Visual Bibliometrics' ist eine Erweiterung des CD-Edition des 'Science Citation Index' und des 'Social Science Citation Index'
    Object
    Science Citation Index
    Social Sciences Citation Index
  8. Tsay, M.-Y.: From Science Citation Index to Journal Citation Reports, amd criteria for journals evaluation (1997) 0.03 
    0.025116233 = product of:
  0.12558116 = sum of:
    0.12558116 = weight(_text_:index in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12558116 = score(doc=657,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.67591333 = fieldWeight in 657, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=657)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Investigates the characteristics of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) through the study of the Science Citation Index (SCI). Other criteria for evaluating a journal are also discussed. The compilation process of SCI data, and the characteristics, applications and limitations of SCI are studied. A detailed description of JCR is provided including: journal ranking listing, citing journal listing, cited journal listing, subject category listing, source data, impact factor, immediacy index, cited half-life and citing half-life. The applications and limitations of JCR are also explored. In addition to the criteria listed in JCR, the size, circulation and influence of journals are also considered significant criteria fir evaluation purposes
    Object
    Science Citation Index
  9. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data (1996) 0.02 
    0.02397574 = product of:
  0.059939347 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
    0.011521274 = product of:
      0.03456382 = sum of:
        0.03456382 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456382 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    It is possible, using ISI's Journal Citation Report (JCR), to calculate average impact factors (AIF) for LCR's subject categories but it can be more useful to know the global Impact Factor (GIF) of a subject category and compare the 2 values. Reports results of a study to compare the relationships between AIFs and GIFs of subjects, based on the particular case of the average impact factor of a subfield versus the impact factor of this subfield as a whole, the difference being studied between an average of quotients, denoted as AQ, and a global average, obtained as a quotient of averages, and denoted as GQ. In the case of impact factors, AQ becomes the average impact factor of a field, and GQ becomes its global impact factor. Discusses a number of applications of this technique in the context of informetrics and scientometrics
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170
  10. Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The generation of aggregated journal-journal citation maps on the basis of the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index (1994) 0.02 
    0.021751298 = product of:
  0.10875649 = sum of:
    0.10875649 = weight(_text_:index in 8281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10875649 = score(doc=8281,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5853582 = fieldWeight in 8281, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8281)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Describes a method for the generation of journal-journal citation maps on the basis of the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index. Discusses sources of potential error from this data. Offers strategies to counteract such errors. Analyzes a number of scientometric periodical mappings in relation to mappings from previous studies which have used tape data and/or data from ISI's Journal Citation Reports. Compares the quality of these mappings with the quality of those for previous years in order to demonstrate the use of such mappings as indicators for dynamic developments in the sciences
    Object
    Science Citation Index
  11. Magri, M.; Solari, A.: ¬The SCI Journal Citation Reports : a potential tool for studying journals? (1996) 0.02 
    0.021751298 = product of:
  0.10875649 = sum of:
    0.10875649 = weight(_text_:index in 5076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10875649 = score(doc=5076,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5853582 = fieldWeight in 5076, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5076)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Analyses 6 indicators of the Science Citation Index Journals Citation Reports over a 19 year period: number of total citations, number of citations to the previous 2 years, number of source items, impact factor, immediacy index and cited half life. Proposes a box plot method to aggregate the values of each indicator so as to obtain at a glance portrayals of the JCR population from 1974 to 1993. This 'rereading' of the JCR, which presents the JCR product differently, makes it possible to shed new light on the large sub population of journals not at the top of the rankings
    Issue
    1. Description of the JCR journal population based on the number of citations received, number of source items, impact factor, immediacy index and cited half life
  12. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990) 0.02 
    0.02160399 = product of:
  0.10801995 = sum of:
    0.10801995 = product of:
      0.16202992 = sum of:
        0.081381 = weight(_text_:29 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081381 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
        0.08064892 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08064892 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:29
  13. Chung, Y.-K.: Bradford distribution and core authors in classification systems literature (1994) 0.02 
    0.021112198 = product of:
  0.052780494 = sum of:
    0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 5066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03727935 = score(doc=5066,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 5066, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5066)
    0.015501143 = product of:
      0.04650343 = sum of:
        0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 5066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04650343 = score(doc=5066,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 5066, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5066)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Bradford's law of scatter was applied to the analysis of the authors of source documents on the subject of classification schemes, published in core periodicals over the period 1981-1990. Results indicated that: core authors of the international classification system literature are Library of Congress, M. Dewey, S. Ranganathan, J. Comaroni, A. Neelameghan, L. Chan and K. Markey; the highly cited authors are linked either to the developers of the classification schemes or to a research centre, or else they authored the most frequently cited books; and the data conforms to Bradford's Law of Scatter
    Source
    Scientometrics. 29(1994) no.2, S.253-269
  14. Persson, O.; Melin, G.: Equalization, growth and integration of science (1996) 0.02 
    0.017940167 = product of:
  0.08970083 = sum of:
    0.08970083 = weight(_text_:index in 6698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08970083 = score(doc=6698,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.48279524 = fieldWeight in 6698, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6698)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Presents a study of the production of scientific papers, coauthorships and R&D expenditures in the OECD countries. Discusses the distribution of papers in the journal 'Science' by OECD country in comparison with 'Science Citation Index' papers as a whole and compares these to the distribution of R&D investments
  15. Zitt, M.; Perrot, F.; Barré, R.: ¬The transition from 'national' to 'transnational' model and related measures of countries' performance (1998) 0.02 
    0.015222736 = product of:
  0.07611368 = sum of:
    0.07611368 = weight(_text_:index in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07611368 = score(doc=328,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 328, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=328)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The trasition from a national science model in which the national language is used for publications and other communications, to a transnational model in which a single international language (English) is used and the market id dominated by Anglo-Saxon publishers, has continued in recent decades. The transition was still in progress for some countries and disciplines throughout the period examined here (1981-1992). The transition process was analyzed in terms of the Science Citation Index database, first by assessing direct manifestations through specific indicators, and then by checking increases in performance by considering transition as a global process. The number of publications and citations followed the expected trend, whereas changes in impact appaer to have been governed by non-transition factors
    Aid
    Science Citation Index
  16. Melin, G.; Persson, O.: Hotel cosmopolitan : a bibliometric study of collaboration at some European universities (1998) 0.02 
    0.015222736 = product of:
  0.07611368 = sum of:
    0.07611368 = weight(_text_:index in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07611368 = score(doc=329,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 329, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=329)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The collaborative pattern of all Nordic universities, as well as a few universities in the UK and the Netherlands, is analyzed using institutionally co-authored articles retrieved from Science Citation Index. The study shows that there are no major differences between universities of various size when it comes to the proportion of articles with internal, national, or international co-authorships. There are some country variations, but within each country, the differences among the universities are small, if any. When co-authorships were fractionalized according to the number of times a given university occurs among the addresses of an article, there were still no significant differences between universities of varying size. Since external collaboration, whether it is national or international, accounts for more than half of all articles produced by the universities, one is inclined to conclude that the universities function as a kind of cosmopolitan hotel housing nodes of scientific networks that are becoming increasingly international
    Aid
    Science Citation Index
  17. Fujigaki, Y.: ¬The citation system : citation networks as repeatedly focusing on difference, continuous re-evaluation, and as persistent knowledge accumulation (1998) 0.01 
    0.01491174 = product of:
  0.0745587 = sum of:
    0.0745587 = weight(_text_:system in 5129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0745587 = score(doc=5129,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5567675 = fieldWeight in 5129, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5129)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    States that it can be shown that claims of a lack of theories of citation are also indicative of a great need for a theory which links science dynamics and measurement. There is a wide gap between qualitative (science dynamics) and quantitative (measurement) approaches. To link them, proposes the use of the citation system, that potentially bridges a gap between measurement and epistemology, by applying system theory to the publication system
  18. Persson, O.; Beckmann, M.: Locating the network of interacting authors in scientific specialities (1995) 0.01 
    0.014352133 = product of:
  0.07176066 = sum of:
    0.07176066 = weight(_text_:index in 3300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07176066 = score(doc=3300,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 3300, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3300)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Seeks to describe the social networks, or invisible colleges, that make up a scientific speciality, in terms of mathematically precise sets generated by document citations and accessible through the Social Science Citation Index. The document and author sets that encompass a scientific specialty are the basis for some interdependent citation matrices. The method of construction of these sets and matrices is illustrated through an application to the literature on invisible colleges
  19. Moed, H.F.: Differences in the construction of SCI based bibliometric indicators among various producers : a first overview (1996) 0.01 
    0.014352133 = product of:
  0.07176066 = sum of:
    0.07176066 = weight(_text_:index in 5073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07176066 = score(doc=5073,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 5073, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5073)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Discusses basic technical methodological issues with respect to data collection and the construction of bibliometric indicators, particular at the macro or meso level. Focuses on the use of the Science Citation Index. Aims to highlight important decisions that have to be made in the process of data collection and the construction of bibliometric indicators. Illustrates differences in the methodologies applied by several important producers of bibliometric indicators, thus illustrating the complexity of the process of 'standardization'
  20. Göbel, S.: Aspekte der Mathematikliteratur : Untersuchungen in verschiedenen Datenbanken (1997) 0.01 
    0.014352133 = product of:
  0.07176066 = sum of:
    0.07176066 = weight(_text_:index in 2166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07176066 = score(doc=2166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 2166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2166)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Literaturdatenbanken wurden eigentlich mit zwei Zielen aufgebaut: einerseits Fachliteratur zu archivieren und zu dokumentieren und andererseits die Literaturhinweise den Wissenschaftlern für Recherchen zur Verfügung zu stellen. Aus diesen gespeicherten Datenmengen kann man baer auch allgemeine Erkenntnisse über die Literatur eines Fachgebietes und das Verhalten der Forscher gewinnen. Vor allem seit den sechziger Jahren, seit dem Aufbau des Science Citation Index - in dem man auch nach zitierten Arbeiten suchen kann - gibt es eine Fülle von informationswisenschaftlichen und wissenssoziologischen Untersuchungen mit Datenbanken

Authors

Languages

Themes