Search (120 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Rostaing, H.; Barts, N.; Léveillé, V.: Bibliometrics: representation instrument of the multidisciplinary positioning of a scientific area : Implementation for an Advisory Scientific Committee (2007) 0.06 
    0.06315335 = product of:
  0.10525558 = sum of:
    0.03837822 = weight(_text_:u in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03837822 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13260265 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.28942272 = fieldWeight in 1144, 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=1144)
    0.044930637 = weight(_text_:b in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044930637 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
    0.02194672 = product of:
      0.04389344 = sum of:
        0.04389344 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04389344 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049623 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Date
    30.12.2007 11:22:39
    Source
    ¬La interdisciplinariedad y la transdisciplinariedad en la organización del conocimiento científico : actas del VIII Congreso ISKO-España, León, 18, 19 y 20 de Abril de 2007 : Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in the organization of scientific knowledge. Ed.: B. Rodriguez Bravo u. M.L Alvite Diez
  2. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.05 
    0.04646882 = product of:
  0.116172045 = sum of:
    0.072278604 = weight(_text_:j in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072278604 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.5617073 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
    0.04389344 = product of:
      0.08778688 = sum of:
        0.08778688 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08778688 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049623 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  3. Hjoerland, B.; Nicolaisen, J.: Bradford's law of scattering : ambiguities in the concept of "subject" (2005) 0.04 
    0.044793062 = product of:
  0.0746551 = sum of:
    0.022587063 = weight(_text_:j in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022587063 = score(doc=157,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
    0.023986388 = weight(_text_:u in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023986388 = score(doc=157,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13260265 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
    0.02808165 = weight(_text_:b in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02808165 = score(doc=157,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Source
    Context: nature, impact and role. 5th International Conference an Conceptions of Library and Information Sciences, CoLIS 2005 Glasgow, UK, June 2005. Ed. by F. Crestani u. I. Ruthven
  4. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.04 
    0.037983995 = product of:
  0.09495999 = sum of:
    0.0561633 = weight(_text_:b in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0561633 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.3914457 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
    0.038796686 = product of:
      0.07759337 = sum of:
        0.07759337 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07759337 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049623 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  5. Pudovkin, A.I.; Garfield, E.: Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals (2002) 0.03 
    0.031534158 = product of:
  0.07883539 = sum of:
    0.03912194 = weight(_text_:j in 5220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03912194 = score(doc=5220,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.304033 = fieldWeight in 5220, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5220)
    0.03971345 = weight(_text_:b in 5220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03971345 = score(doc=5220,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.2767939 = fieldWeight in 5220, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5220)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Journal Citation Reports provides a classification of journals most heavily cited by a given journal and which most heavily cite that journal, but size variation is not taken into account. Pudovkin and Garfield suggest a procedure for meeting this difficulty. The relatedness of journal i to journal j is determined by the number of citations from journal i to journal j in a given year normalized by the product of the papers published in the j journal in that year times the number of references cited in the i journal in that year. A multiplier of ten to the sixth is suggested to bring the values into an easily perceptible range. While citations received depend upon the overall cumulative number of papers published by a journal, the current year is utilized since that data is available in JCR. Citations to current year papers would be quite low in most fields and thus not included. To produce the final index, the maximum of the A citing B value, and the B citing A value is chosen and used to indicate the closeness of the journals. The procedure is illustrated for the journal Genetics.
  6. Eijk, C.C. van der; Mulligen, E.M. van; Kors, J.A.; Mons, B.; Berg, J. van den: Constructing an associative concept space for literature-based discovery (2004) 0.02 
    0.02432098 = product of:
  0.060802452 = sum of:
    0.027104476 = weight(_text_:j in 2228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027104476 = score(doc=2228,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 2228, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2228)
    0.033697978 = weight(_text_:b in 2228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033697978 = score(doc=2228,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 2228, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2228)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
  7. Nicolaisen, J.; Hjoerland, B.: Practical potentials of Bradford's law : a critical examination of the received view (2007) 0.02 
    0.02432098 = product of:
  0.060802452 = sum of:
    0.027104476 = weight(_text_:j in 830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027104476 = score(doc=830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=830)
    0.033697978 = weight(_text_:b in 830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033697978 = score(doc=830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=830)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
  8. Janssens, F.; Leta, J.; Glänzel, W.; Moor, B. de: Towards mapping library and information science (2006) 0.02 
    0.02432098 = product of:
  0.060802452 = sum of:
    0.027104476 = weight(_text_:j in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027104476 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
    0.033697978 = weight(_text_:b in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033697978 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
  9. Kretschmer, H.; Kretschmer, T.: Well-ordered collaboration structures of co-author pairs in journals (2006) 0.02 
    0.020827217 = product of:
  0.05206804 = sum of:
    0.023986388 = weight(_text_:u in 25) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023986388 = score(doc=25,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13260265 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 25, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=25)
    0.02808165 = weight(_text_:b in 25) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02808165 = score(doc=25,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 25, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=25)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In single-authored bibliographies only single scientist distribution can be found. But in multi-authored bibliographies single scientists distribution, pairs distribution, triples distribution, etc., can be presented. Whereas regarding Lotka's law single scientists P distribution (both in single-authored and in multi-authored bibliographies) is of interest, in the future pairs P, Q distribution, triples P, Q, R distribution, etc. should be considered Starting with pair distribution, the following question arises in the present paper: Is there also any regularity or well-ordered structure for the distribution of coauthor pairs in journals in analogy to Lotka's law for the distribution of single authors? Usually, in information science "laws " or "regularities " (for example Lotka's law) are mathematical descriptions of observed data inform of functions; however explanations of these phenomena are mostly missing. By contrast, in this paper the derivation of a formula for describing the distribution of the number of co-author pairs will be presented based on wellknown regularities in socio psychology or sociology in conjunction with the Gestalt theory as explanation for well-ordered collaboration structures and production of scientific literature, as well as derivations from Lotka's law. The assumed regularities for the distribution of co-author pairs in journals could be shown in the co-authorship data (1980-1998) of the journals Science, Nature, Proc Nat Acad Sci USA and Phys Rev B Condensed Matter.
    Source
    Vom Wandel der Wissensorganisation im Informationszeitalter: Festschrift für Walther Umstätter zum 65. Geburtstag, hrsg. von P. Hauke u. K. Umlauf
  10. Antonakis, J.; Lalive, R.: Quantifying scholarly impact : IQp versus the Hirsch h (2008) 0.02 
    0.020267485 = product of:
  0.050668713 = sum of:
    0.022587063 = weight(_text_:j in 1722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022587063 = score(doc=1722,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 1722, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1722)
    0.02808165 = weight(_text_:b in 1722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02808165 = score(doc=1722,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 1722, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1722)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Hirsch's (2005) h index of scholarly output has generated substantial interest and wide acceptance because of its apparent ability to quantify scholarly impact simply and accurately. We show that the excitement surrounding h is premature for three reasons: h stagnates with increasing scientific age; it is highly dependent on publication quantity; and it is highly dependent on field-specific citation rates. Thus, it is not useful for comparing scholars across disciplines. We propose the scholarly index of quality and productivity (IQp) as an alternative to h. The new index takes into account a scholar's total impact and also corrects for field-specific citation rates, scholarly productivity, and scientific age. The IQp accurately predicts group membership on a common metric, as tested on a sample of 80 scholars from three populations: (a) Nobel winners in physics (n = 10), chemistry (n = 10), medicine (n = 10), and economics (n = 10), and towering psychologists (n = 10); and scholars who have made more modest contributions to science including randomly selected (b) fellows (n = 15) and (c) members (n = 15) of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The IQp also correlates better with expert ratings of greatness than does the h index.
  11. Bensman, S.J.: Urquhart's and Garfield's laws : the British controversy over their validity (2001) 0.02 
    0.019936165 = product of:
  0.049840413 = sum of:
    0.018069651 = weight(_text_:j in 6026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018069651 = score(doc=6026,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.14042683 = fieldWeight in 6026, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6026)
    0.031770762 = weight(_text_:b in 6026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031770762 = score(doc=6026,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.22143513 = fieldWeight in 6026, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6026)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The British controversy over the validity of Urquhart's and Garfield's Laws during the 1970s constitutes an important episode in the formulation of the probability structure of human knowledge. This controversy took place within the historical context of the convergence of two scientific revolutions-the bibliometric and the biometric-that had been launched in Britain. The preceding decades had witnessed major breakthroughs in understanding the probability distributions underlying the use of human knowledge. Two of the most important of these breakthroughs were the laws posited by Donald J. Urquhart and Eugene Garfield, who played major roles in establishing the institutional bases of the bibliometric revolution. For his part, Urquhart began his realization of S. C. Bradford's concept of a national science library by analyzing the borrowing of journals on interlibrary loan from the Science Museum Library in 1956. He found that 10% of the journals accounted for 80% of the loans and formulated Urquhart's Law, by which the interlibrary use of a journal is a measure of its total use. This law underlay the operations of the National Lending Library for Science and Technology (NLLST), which Urquhart founded. The NLLST became the British Library Lending Division (BLLD) and ultimately the British Library Document Supply Centre (BLDSC). In contrast, Garfield did a study of 1969 journal citations as part of the process of creating the Science Citation Index (SCI), formulating his Law of Concentration, by which the bulk of the information needs in science can be satisfied by a relatively small, multidisciplinary core of journals. This law became the operational principle of the Institute for Scientif ic Information created by Garfield. A study at the BLLD under Urquhart's successor, Maurice B. Line, found low correlations of NLLST use with SCI citations, and publication of this study started a major controversy, during which both laws were called into question. The study was based on the faulty use of the Spearman rank correlation coefficient, and the controversy over it was instrumental in causing B. C. Brookes to investigate bibliometric laws as probabilistic phenomena and begin to link the bibliometric with the biometric revolution. This paper concludes with a resolution of the controversy by means of a statistical technique that incorporates Brookes' criticism of the Spearman rank-correlation method and demonstrates the mutual supportiveness of the two laws
  12. Raan, A.F.J. van: Scaling rules in the science system : influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of research groups (2008) 0.02 
    0.01809748 = product of:
  0.045243703 = sum of:
    0.028783662 = weight(_text_:u in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028783662 = score(doc=2758,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13260265 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 2758, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2758)
    0.016460039 = product of:
      0.032920077 = sum of:
        0.032920077 = weight(_text_:22 in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032920077 = score(doc=2758,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049623 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2758, 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=2758)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:03:12
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch: Costas, R., M. Bordons u. T.N. van Leeuwen u.a.: Scaling rules in the science system: Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.740-753.
  13. Umstätter, W.: Szientometrische Verfahren (2004) 0.02 
    0.017897382 = product of:
  0.044743456 = sum of:
    0.025554344 = weight(_text_:j in 2920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025554344 = score(doc=2920,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.19859353 = fieldWeight in 2920, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2920)
    0.01918911 = weight(_text_:u in 2920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01918911 = score(doc=2920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13260265 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.14471136 = fieldWeight in 2920, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2920)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Die Szientometrie beschäftigt sich mit der Messbarkeit wissenschaftlicher Leistungen anhand bibliothekarisch nachweisbarer Publikationsergebnisse. Bei genauer Betrachtung ist es ihr Ziel, die Wissenszunahme der Wissenschaft zu messen. Die wissenschaftliche Produktion in Form von Publikationen wächst seit über dreihundert Jahren konstant mit ca. 3,5% pro Jahr. Das entspricht einerVerdopplungsrate von 20 Jahren, die zuerst dem Bibliothekar Fremont Rider 1948 bei Büchern auffiel und die 1963 von Derek J. de Solla Price auch für das Wachstum von Zeitschriften und Bibliografien bestätigt wurde. Die Konstanz dieser Evolution, unabhängig aller sich ereignenden Katastrophen, ist nur zum Teil verstanden, macht aber den unaufhaltsamen Fortschritt der Wissenschaft deutlich. Alle 20 Jahre wird so viel publiziert wie in allen Jahrhunderten davor. Eine etwa gleiche Zunahme verzeichnen die Wissenschaftler, die damit etwa gleich produktiv bleiben. Von ihnen allen sind damit ca. 87% unsere heutigen Zeitgenossen. Aus diesem Wachstum heraus können wir abschätzen, dass in 100.000 laufenden Zeitschriften heute etwa 10 Mio. Publikationen jährlich erscheinen, die von 10 Mio. Wissenschaftlern verfasst werden. Dabei definieren sich nur die als Wissenschaftler, die durchschnittlich eine Publikation jährlich verfassen. Die gesamte Produktion an Buchtiteln, die bisher erschien, dürfte bei etwa 100 Mio. liegen. Davon sind etwa 20 Mio. als wissenschaftlich einzustufen. Wenn folglich 87% aller Wissenschaftler noch heute leben, so betrug die Gesamtzahl der Wissenschaftler in der Welt bisher 11,5 Mio., die in ihrem Leben durchschnittlich 1,5 Bücher pro Kopf verfassten, und etwa das 10-20fache an Zeitschriftenbeiträgen leisteten. Ein Teil dieser Bücher sind allerdings Neuauflagen und Übersetzungen. Nach Lotka, A. J. ist die Produktivität der Wissenschaftler eine schiefe Verteilung von der Form A/n**2, wobei A die Zahl der Autoren mit nur einer Publikation ist und n die Publikationen pro Autor. Während Price in seinen "Networks of Scientific Papers" Vergleichswerte von n**2,5 bis n**3 angab, zeigten Untersuchungen am Science Citation Index (SCI), die auf die gesamte naturwissenschaftliche Literatur hochgerechnet wurden, eher einen Wert von n**1,7. Auf die Tatsache, dass eine Verdopplungsrate der Wissenschaftler von 20 Jahren und eine solche der Menschheit von etwa 50 Jahren dazu führt, dass eines Tages alle Menschen Wissenschaftler werden, hat Price bereits 1963 hingewiesen. Dieser Zustand müsste bei 10 Mio. Wissenschaftlern und 6 Mrd. Menschen in etwa 300 Jahren eintreten, ein nur scheinbar absurder Gedanke, wenn man bedenkt, dass man sich vor 300 Jahren auch kaum vorstellen konnte, dass alle Menschen Lesen, Schreiben und Rechnen lernen können, und dass wir uns ungebildete Menschen immer weniger leisten können.
    Source
    Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. 5., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. 2 Bde. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, Th. Seeger u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried. Bd.1: Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis
  14. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.02 
    0.017425805 = product of:
  0.043564513 = sum of:
    0.027104476 = weight(_text_:j in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027104476 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.016460039 = product of:
      0.032920077 = sum of:
        0.032920077 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032920077 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049623 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
  15. Chen, C.: CiteSpace II : detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature (2006) 0.02 
    0.01671934 = product of:
  0.04179835 = sum of:
    0.02808165 = weight(_text_:b in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02808165 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
    0.0137167005 = product of:
      0.027433401 = sum of:
        0.027433401 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027433401 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049623 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article describes the latest development of a generic approach to detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. The work makes substantial theoretical and methodological contributions to progressive knowledge domain visualization. A specialty is conceptualized and visualized as a time-variant duality between two fundamental concepts in information science: research fronts and intellectual bases. A research front is defined as an emergent and transient grouping of concepts and underlying research issues. The intellectual base of a research front is its citation and co-citation footprint in scientific literature - an evolving network of scientific publications cited by research-front concepts. Kleinberg's (2002) burst-detection algorithm is adapted to identify emergent research-front concepts. Freeman's (1979) betweenness centrality metric is used to highlight potential pivotal points of paradigm shift over time. Two complementary visualization views are designed and implemented: cluster views and time-zone views. The contributions of the approach are that (a) the nature of an intellectual base is algorithmically and temporally identified by emergent research-front terms, (b) the value of a co-citation cluster is explicitly interpreted in terms of research-front concepts, and (c) visually prominent and algorithmically detected pivotal points substantially reduce the complexity of a visualized network. The modeling and visualization process is implemented in CiteSpace II, a Java application, and applied to the analysis of two research fields: mass extinction (1981-2004) and terrorism (1990-2003). Prominent trends and pivotal points in visualized networks were verified in collaboration with domain experts, who are the authors of pivotal-point articles. Practical implications of the work are discussed. A number of challenges and opportunities for future studies are identified.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:11:05
  16. Mukherjee, B.: Do open-access journals in library and information science have any scholarly impact? : a bibliometric study of selected open-access journals using Google Scholar (2009) 0.02 
    0.01671934 = product of:
  0.04179835 = sum of:
    0.02808165 = weight(_text_:b in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02808165 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
    0.0137167005 = product of:
      0.027433401 = sum of:
        0.027433401 = weight(_text_:22 in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027433401 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049623 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:54:59
  17. Qin, J.: Semantic patterns in bibliographically coupled documents (2002) 0.02 
    0.016213989 = product of:
  0.04053497 = sum of:
    0.018069651 = weight(_text_:j in 4266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018069651 = score(doc=4266,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.14042683 = fieldWeight in 4266, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4266)
    0.022465318 = weight(_text_:b in 4266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022465318 = score(doc=4266,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 4266, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4266)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Different research fields have different definitions for semantic patterns. For knowledge discovery and representation, semantic patterns represent the distribution of occurrences of words in documents and/or citations. In the broadest sense, the term semantic patterns may also refer to the distribution of occurrences of subjects or topics as reflected in documents. The semantic pattern in a set of documents or a group of topics therefore implies quantitative indicators that describe the subject characteristics of the documents being examined. These characteristics are often described by frequencies of keyword occurrences, number of co-occurred keywords, occurrences of coword, and number of cocitations. There are many ways to analyze and derive semantic patterns in documents and citations. A typical example is text mining in full-text documents, a research topic that studies how to extract useful associations and patterns through clustering, categorizing, and summarizing words in texts. One unique way in library and information science is to discover semantic patterns through bibliographically coupled citations. The history of bibliographical coupling goes back in the early 1960s when Kassler investigated associations among technical reports and technical information flow patterns. A number of definitions may facilitate our understanding of bibliographic coupling: (1) bibliographic coupling determines meaningful relations between papers by a study of each paper's bibliography; (2) a unit of coupling is the functional bond between papers when they share a single reference item; (3) coupling strength shows the order of combinations of units of coupling into a graded scale between groups of papers; and (4) a coupling criterion is the way by which the coupling units are combined between two or more papers. Kessler's classic paper an bibliographic coupling between scientific papers proposes the following two graded criteria: Criterion A: A number of papers constitute a related group GA if each member of the group has at least one coupling unit to a given test paper P0. The coupling strength between P0 and any member of GA is measured by the number of coupling units n between them. G(subA)(supn) is that portion of GA that is linked to P0 through n coupling units; Criterion B: A number of papers constitute a related group GB if each member of the group has at least one coupling unit to every other member of the group.
  18. Cronin, B.: Bibliometrics and beyond : some thoughts on web-based citation analysis (2001) 0.02 
    0.015725723 = product of:
  0.078628615 = sum of:
    0.078628615 = weight(_text_:b in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.078628615 = score(doc=3890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.54802394 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  19. Larsen, B.: Exploiting citation overlaps for information retrieval : generating a boomerang effect from the network of scientific papers (2002) 0.01 
    0.013479191 = product of:
  0.067395955 = sum of:
    0.067395955 = weight(_text_:b in 4175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067395955 = score(doc=4175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.46973482 = fieldWeight in 4175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4175)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  20. Tonta, Y.; Ünal, Y.: Scatter of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in document delivery requests (2005) 0.01 
    0.013375471 = product of:
  0.03343868 = sum of:
    0.022465318 = weight(_text_:b in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022465318 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049623 = queryNorm
        0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
    0.01097336 = product of:
      0.02194672 = sum of:
        0.02194672 = weight(_text_:22 in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02194672 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049623 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3271, 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=3271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In this paper we investigate the scattering of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in more than 137,000 document delivery requests submitted to a national document delivery service. We first summarize the major findings of the study with regards to the performance of the service. We then identify the "core" journals from which article requests were satisfied and address the following research questions: (a) Does the distribution of (core) journals conform to the Bradford's Law of Scattering? (b) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and impact factors, journals with high impact factors being used more often than the rest? (c) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being used more often than the rest? (d) What is the median age of use (half-life) of requested articles in general? (e) Do requested articles that appear in core journals get obsolete more slowly? (f) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and journal impact factors, journals with high impact factors being obsolete more slowly? (g) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being obsolete more slowly? Based an the analysis of findings, we found that the distribution of highly and moderately used journal titles conform to Bradford's Law. The median age of use was 8 years for all requested articles. Ninety percent of the articles requested were 21 years of age or younger. Articles that appeared in 168 core journal titles seem to get obsolete slightly more slowly than those of all titles. We observed no statistically significant correlations between the frequency of journal use and ISI journal impact factors, and between the frequency of journal use and ISI- (Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA) cited half-lives for the most heavily used 168 core journal titles. There was a weak correlation between usage of journals and ISI-reported total citation counts. No statistically significant relationship was found between median age of use and journal impact factors and between median age of use and total citation counts. There was a weak negative correlation between ISI journal impact factors and cited half-lives of 168 core journals, and a weak correlation between ISI citation halflives and use half-lives of core journals. No correlation was found between cited half-lives of 168 core journals and their corresponding total citation counts as reported by ISI. Findings of the current study are discussed along with those of other studies.
    Date
    20. 3.2005 10:54:22

Authors

Languages

  • e 104
  • d 16

Themes