Search (63 results, page 1 of 4)

0.034380026 = product of:
  0.06876005 = sum of:
    0.06876005 = sum of:
      0.03800752 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03800752 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 2743, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2743)
      0.030752534 = weight(_text_:22 in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030752534 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2743, 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=2743)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, we performed a comparative study to investigate the performance of methods for detecting emerging research fronts. Three types of citation network, co-citation, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation, were tested in three research domains, gallium nitride (GaN), complex network (CNW), and carbon nanotube (CNT). Three types of citation network were constructed for each research domain, and the papers in those domains were divided into clusters to detect the research front. We evaluated the performance of each type of citation network in detecting a research front by using the following measures of papers in the cluster: visibility, measured by normalized cluster size, speed, measured by average publication year, and topological relevance, measured by density. Direct citation, which could detect large and young emerging clusters earlier, shows the best performance in detecting a research front, and co-citation shows the worst. Additionally, in direct citation networks, the clustering coefficient was the largest, which suggests that the content similarity of papers connected by direct citations is the greatest and that direct citation networks have the least risk of missing emerging research domains because core papers are included in the largest component.

Date

22. 3.2009 17:52:50

0.027929706 = product of:
  0.055859413 = sum of:
    0.055859413 = product of:
      0.111718826 = sum of:
        0.111718826 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.111718826 = score(doc=2840,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.63215154 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper explores the ISI Journal Citation Reports (JCR) bibliographic and subject structures through Library of Congress (LC) and American research libraries cataloging and classification methodology. The 2006 Science Citation Index JCR Behavioral Sciences subject category journals are used as an example. From the library perspective, the main fault of the JCR bibliographic structure is that the JCR mistakenly identifies journal title segments as journal bibliographic entities, seriously affecting journal rankings by total cites and the impact factor. In respect to JCR subject structure, the title segment, which constitutes the JCR bibliographic basis, is posited as the best bibliographic entity for the citation measurement of journal subject relationships. Through factor analysis and other methods, the JCR subject categorization of journals is tested against their LC subject headings and classification. The finding is that JCR and library journal subject analyses corroborate, clarify, and correct each other.

0.02750402 = product of:
  0.05500804 = sum of:
    0.05500804 = sum of:
      0.030406015 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030406015 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.17204987 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.024602026 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024602026 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.

Date

9. 7.2006 10:22:35

0.024602026 = product of:
  0.04920405 = sum of:
    0.04920405 = product of:
      0.0984081 = sum of:
        0.0984081 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0984081 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.021745324 = product of:
  0.04349065 = sum of:
    0.04349065 = product of:
      0.0869813 = sum of:
        0.0869813 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0869813 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.01900376 = product of:
  0.03800752 = sum of:
    0.03800752 = product of:
      0.07601504 = sum of:
        0.07601504 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07601504 = score(doc=4542,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.43012467 = fieldWeight in 4542, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4542)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The reciprocal relationship between bibliographic references and citations in the context of the scholarly communication system is examined. Semiotic analysis of referencing behaviours and citation counting reveals the complexity of prevailing sign systems and associated symbolic practices.

0.01845152 = product of:
  0.03690304 = sum of:
    0.03690304 = product of:
      0.07380608 = sum of:
        0.07380608 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07380608 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2007 17:02:22

0.016457738 = product of:
  0.032915477 = sum of:
    0.032915477 = product of:
      0.06583095 = sum of:
        0.06583095 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06583095 = score(doc=4338,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.3724989 = fieldWeight in 4338, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4338)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A model is presented of the manifestation of the birth and development of a scientific specialty in a collection of journal papers. The proposed model, Cumulative Advantage by Paper with Exemplars (CAPE) is an adaptation of Price's cumulative advantage model (D. Price, 1976). Two modifications are made: (a) references are cited in groups by paper, and (b) the model accounts for the generation of highly cited exemplar references immediately after the birth of the specialty. This simple growth process mimics many characteristic features of real collections of papers, including the structure of the paper-to-reference matrix, the reference-per-paper distribution, the paper-per-reference distribution, the bibliographic coupling distribution, the cocitation distribution, the bibliographic coupling clustering coefficient distribution, and the temporal distribution of exemplar references. The model yields a great deal of insight into the process that produces the connectedness and clustering of a collection of articles and references. Two examples are presented and successfully modeled: a collection of 131 articles an MEMS RF (microelectromechnical systems radio frequency) switches, and a collection of 901 articles an the subject of complex networks.

0.0152030075 = product of:
  0.030406015 = sum of:
    0.030406015 = product of:
      0.06081203 = sum of:
        0.06081203 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06081203 = score(doc=5766,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

How are library professionals who do research about bibliographic organization using electronic resources (e-resources) in their journal articles? Are they keeping pace with the use of e-resources outside the library world? What are the e-resources most used in their research? This article aims to address these and other questions by analyzing bibliographical references/notes in articles in Cataloging and Classification Quarterly (CCQ) for every other year from 1994 to 2004.

0.0134376865 = product of:
  0.026875373 = sum of:
    0.026875373 = product of:
      0.053750746 = sum of:
        0.053750746 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053750746 = score(doc=6936,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 6936, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6936)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The distribution of bibliographic records in on-line bibliographic databases is examined using 14 different search topics. These topics were searched using the DIALOG database host, and using as many suitable databases as possible. The presence of duplicate records in the searches was taken into consideration in the analysis, and the problem with lexical ambiguity in at least one search topic is discussed. The study answers questions such as how many databases are needed in a multifile search for particular topics, and what coverage will be achieved using a certain number of databases. The distribution of the percentages of records retrieved over a number of databases for 13 of the 14 search topics roughly fell into three groups: (1) high concentration of records in one database with about 80% coverage in five to eight databases; (2) moderate concentration in one database with about 80% coverage in seven to 10 databases; and (3) low concentration in one database with about 80% coverage in 16 to 19 databases. The study does conform with earlier results, but shows that the number of databases needed for searches with varying complexities of search strategies, is much more topic dependent than previous studies would indicate.

0.0134376865 = product of:
  0.026875373 = sum of:
    0.026875373 = product of:
      0.053750746 = sum of:
        0.053750746 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053750746 = score(doc=1868,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bibliographic databases contain surrogates to a particular subset of the complete set of literature; some databases are very narrow in their scope, while others are multidisciplinary. These databases overlap in their coverage of the literature to a greater or lesser extent. The topic of Fuzzy Set Theory is examined to determine the overlap of coverage in the databases that index this topic. It was found that about 63% of records in the data set are unique to only one database, and the remaining 37% are duplicated in from two to 12 different databases. The overlap distribution is found to conform to a Lotka-type plot. The records with maximum overlap are identified; however, further work is needed to determine the significance of the high level of overlap in these records. The unique records are plotted using a Bradford-type form of data presentation and are found to conform (visually) to a hyperbolic distribution. The extent and causes of intra-database duplication (records duplicated in the one database) are also examined. Finally, the overlap in the top databases in the dataset were examined, and a high correlation was found between overlapping records, and overlapping DIALOG OneSearch categories.

0.0134376865 = product of:
  0.026875373 = sum of:
    0.026875373 = product of:
      0.053750746 = sum of:
        0.053750746 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053750746 = score(doc=2114,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 2114, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2114)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Walters and Wilder describe the literature of later-life migration, a multi-disciplinary topic, and evaluate its bibliographic coverage in seven disciplinary and five multi-disciplinary databases. Multiple database searches and reviews of the references of found items discovered over 500 papers published between January 1990 and December 2000. These were then read to determine if late-life migration was their central focus, and to select those which presented noteworthy findings, innovative approaches, or were covering topics unseen elsewhere, and also were understandable to a broad readership, and generally available. One hundred and fifty five journal articles met these criteria and are the focus of the study. The core journals of sociology, economics, and demography are not major contributors, but three gerontology journals are in the top five. The top two journals have broad coverage, but the others tend to concentrate on one of five themes. The top five journals account for 40 % of papers and the top twelve 70%. Of nine papers cited 30 or more times seven appeared in the top 12 contributing journals. The median article in the study was indexed by six of the twelve databases, and 12% were indexed by more than 7 databases. The correlation between citation and number of databases indexing a paper is very low. Social Sciences Citation Index will 73% coverage. Typical overlap in the 12 databases is about 45%.

0.0134376865 = product of:
  0.026875373 = sum of:
    0.026875373 = product of:
      0.053750746 = sum of:
        0.053750746 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053750746 = score(doc=5176,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Vaughn, and Shaw look at the relationship between traditional citation and Web citation (not hyperlinks but rather textual mentions of published papers). Using English language research journals in ISI's 2000 Journal Citation Report - Information and Library Science category - 1209 full length papers published in 1997 in 46 journals were identified. Each was searched in Social Science Citation Index and on the Web using Google phrase search by entering the title in quotation marks, and followed for distinction where necessary with sub-titles, author's names, and journal title words. After removing obvious false drops, the number of web sites was recorded for comparison with the SSCI counts. A second sample from 1992 was also collected for examination. There were a total of 16,371 web citations to the selected papers. The top and bottom ranked four journals were then examined and every third citation to every third paper was selected and classified as to source type, domain, and country of origin. Web counts are much higher than ISI citation counts. Of the 46 journals from 1997, 26 demonstrated a significant correlation between Web and traditional citation counts, and 11 of the 15 in the 1992 sample also showed significant correlation. Journal impact factor in 1998 and 1999 correlated significantly with average Web citations per journal in the 1997 data, but at a low level. Thirty percent of web citations come from other papers posted on the web, and 30percent from listings of web based bibliographic services, while twelve percent come from class reading lists. High web citation journals often have web accessible tables of content.

0.0134376865 = product of:
  0.026875373 = sum of:
    0.026875373 = product of:
      0.053750746 = sum of:
        0.053750746 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053750746 = score(doc=2384,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 2384, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2384)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Author cocitation analysis (ACA) has frequently been applied over the last two decades for mapping the intellectual structure of a research field as represented by its authors. However, what is mapped in ACA is actually the structure of intellectual influences on a research field as perceived by its active authors. In this exploratory paper, by contrast, we introduce author bibliographic-coupling analysis (ABCA) as a method to map the research activities of active authors themselves for a more realistic picture of the current state of research in a field. We choose the information science (IS) field and study its intellectual structure both in terms of current research activities as seen from ABCA and in terms of intellectual influences on its research as shown from ACA. We examine how these two aspects of the intellectual structure of the IS field are related, and how they both developed during the first decade of the Web, 1996-2005. We find that these two citation-based author-mapping methods complement each other, and that, in combination, they provide a more comprehensive view of the intellectual structure of the IS field than either of them can provide on its own.

0.013302632 = product of:
  0.026605263 = sum of:
    0.026605263 = product of:
      0.053210527 = sum of:
        0.053210527 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053210527 = score(doc=2566,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 2566, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2566)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We present a bibliometric study of a corpus of 839 bibliographic references about automatic indexing, covering the period 1956-2000. We analyse the distribution of authors and works, the obsolescence and its dispersion, and the distribution of the literature by topic, year, and source type. We conclude that: (i) there has been a constant interest on the part of researchers; (ii) the most studied topics were the techniques and methods employed and the general aspects of automatic indexing; (iii) the productivity of the authors does fit a Lotka distribution (Dmax=0.02 and critical value=0.054); (iv) the annual aging factor is 95%; and (v) the dispersion of the literature is low.

0.013302632 = product of:
  0.026605263 = sum of:
    0.026605263 = product of:
      0.053210527 = sum of:
        0.053210527 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053210527 = score(doc=3680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 3680, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Papers in journals are indexed in bibliographic databases in varying degrees of overlap. The question has been raised as to whether papers that appear in multiple databases (highly overlapping) are in any way more significant (such as being more highly cited) than papers that are indexed in few databases. This paper uses a dataset from fuzzy set theory to compare low overlap papers with high overlap ones, and finds that more highly overlapping papers are in fact more highly cited.

0.013302632 = product of:
  0.026605263 = sum of:
    0.026605263 = product of:
      0.053210527 = sum of:
        0.053210527 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053210527 = score(doc=4391,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 4391, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4391)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bibliographic databases (including databases based on open access) are routinely used for bibliometric research. The value of a specific database depends to a large extent on the coverage of the discipline(s) under study. A number of studies have determined the coverage of databases in specific disciplines focusing on interdisciplinary differences; however, little is known about the potential existence of intradisciplinary differences in database coverage. Focusing on intradisciplinary differences, the article documents large database-coverage differences within two disciplines (economics and psychology). The point extends to include both the uneven coverage of specialties and research traditions. The implications for bibliometric research are discussed, and precautions which need to be taken are outlined.

0.013302632 = product of:
  0.026605263 = sum of:
    0.026605263 = product of:
      0.053210527 = sum of:
        0.053210527 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053210527 = score(doc=79,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

HistCite(TM) is a software tool for analyzing and visualizing direct citation linkages between scientific papers. Its inputs are bibliographic records (with cited references) from "Web of Knowledge" or other sources. Its outputs are various tables and graphs with informetric indicators about the knowledge domain under study. As an example we analyze informetrically the literature about Alexius Meinong, an Austrian philosopher and psychologist. The article shortly discusses the informetric functionality of "Web of Knowledge" and shows broadly the possibilities that HistCite offers to its users (e.g. scientists, scientometricans and science journalists).

0.013302632 = product of:
  0.026605263 = sum of:
    0.026605263 = product of:
      0.053210527 = sum of:
        0.053210527 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053210527 = score(doc=2772,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 2772, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2772)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, bibliometric indicators with publications and citations are used for a direct research-performance comparison among different or interdisciplinary categories, the work of individual scientists, and their research teams and institutions. For example, basic research performances of some projects at the Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST) were assessed using bibliographic factors with IPQ-Normalized impact factor to compare with an international level and other research groups in different or interdisciplinary fields. Some research teams at KIST showed higher quality publications in terms of the international measures.

0.013166191 = product of:
  0.026332382 = sum of:
    0.026332382 = product of:
      0.052664764 = sum of:
        0.052664764 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052664764 = score(doc=4266,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.2979991 = fieldWeight in 4266, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.