Search (152 results, page 1 of 8)

0.124097 = product of:
  0.248194 = sum of:
    0.248194 = sum of:
      0.22050136 = weight(_text_:journals in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.22050136 = score(doc=3271,freq=30.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.85942185 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
            5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
              30.0 = termFreq=30.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
      0.027692629 = weight(_text_:22 in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027692629 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = 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)

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

0.12405765 = product of:
  0.2481153 = sum of:
    0.2481153 = sum of:
      0.21349952 = weight(_text_:journals in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.21349952 = score(doc=2745,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.83213156 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
      0.03461579 = weight(_text_:22 in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03461579 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = 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)

Abstract

Using 17 fully open-access journals published uninterruptedly during 2000 to 2004 in the field of library and information science, the present study investigates the impact of these open-access journals in terms of quantity of articles published, subject distribution of the articles, synchronous and diachronous impact factor, immediacy index, and journals' and authors' self-citation. The results indicate that during this 5-year publication period, there are as many as 1,636 articles published by these journals. At the same time, the articles have received a total of 8,591 Web citations during a 7-year citation period. Eight of 17 journals have received more than 100 citations. First Monday received the highest number of citations; however, the average number of citations per article was the highest in D-Lib Magazine. The value of the synchronous impact factor varies from 0.6989 to 1.0014 during 2002 to 2005, and the diachronous impact factor varies from 1.472 to 2.487 during 2000 to 2004. The range of the immediacy index varies between 0.0714 and 1.395. D-Lib Magazine has an immediacy index value above 0.5 in all the years whereas the immediacy index value varies from year to year for the other journals. When the citations of sample articles were analyzed according to source, it was found that 40.32% of the citations came from full-text articles, followed by 33.35% from journal articles. The percentage of journals' self-citation was only 6.04%.

Date

22. 3.2009 17:54:59

0.106169276 = product of:
  0.21233855 = sum of:
    0.21233855 = sum of:
      0.17079961 = weight(_text_:journals in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17079961 = score(doc=994,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.66570526 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
      0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041538943 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = 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)

Abstract

Citation rates are becoming increasingly important in judging the research quality of journals, institutions and departments, and individual faculty. This paper looks at the pattern of citations across different management science journals and over time. A stochastic model is proposed which views the generating mechanism of citations as a gamma mixture of Poisson processes generating overall a negative binomial distribution. This is tested empirically with a large sample of papers published in 1990 from six management science journals and found to fit well. The model is extended to include obsolescence, i.e., that the citation rate for a paper varies over its cited lifetime. This leads to the additional citations distribution which shows that future citations are a linear function of past citations with a time-dependent and decreasing slope. This is also verified empirically in a way that allows different obsolescence functions to be fitted to the data. Conclusions concerning the predictability of future citations, and future research in this area are discussed.

Date

26.12.2007 19:22:05

0.081156254 = product of:
  0.16231251 = sum of:
    0.16231251 = sum of:
      0.12077357 = weight(_text_:journals in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12077357 = score(doc=201,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.47072473 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
      0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041538943 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.

Date

3. 1.2007 17:22:03

0.07207237 = product of:
  0.14414474 = sum of:
    0.14414474 = sum of:
      0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08539981 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.05874494 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05874494 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20%, 50%, and 80% of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.06751448 = product of:
  0.13502896 = sum of:
    0.13502896 = product of:
      0.27005792 = sum of:
        0.27005792 = weight(_text_:journals in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27005792 = score(doc=70,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            1.0525725 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The journal structure in the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database (CSTPCD) is analyzed from three perspectives: the database level, the specialty level, and the institutional level (i.e., university journals vs. journals issued by the Chinese Academy of Sciences). The results are compared with those for (Chinese) journals included in the Science Citation Index (SCI). The frequency of journal-journal citation relations in the CSTPCD is an order of magnitude lower than in the SCI. Chinese journals, especially high-quality journals, prefer to cite international journals rather than domestic ones; however, Chinese journals do not get an equivalent reception from their international counterparts. The international visibility of Chinese journals is low, but varies among fields of science. Journals of the Chinese Academy of Sciences have a better reception in the international scientific community than university journals.

0.06346937 = product of:
  0.12693875 = sum of:
    0.12693875 = sum of:
      0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08539981 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
      0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041538943 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 135, 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=135)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The reference lists of forty-three education dissertations on curriculum and instruction completed at the University of Minnesota during the calendar years 2000-2002 were analyzed to inform collection development. As one measure of use of the academic library collection, the citation analysis yielded data to guide journal selection, retention, and cancellation decisions. The project aimed to ensure that the most frequently cited journals were retained on subscription. The serial monograph ratio for citation also was evaluated in comparison with other studies and explored in the context of funding ratios. Results of citation studies can provide a basis for liaison conversations with faculty in addition to guiding selection decisions. This research project can serve as a model for similar projects in other libraries that look at literature in education as well as other fields.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.06346937 = product of:
  0.12693875 = sum of:
    0.12693875 = sum of:
      0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08539981 = score(doc=2695,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 2695, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2695)
      0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041538943 = score(doc=2695,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2695, 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=2695)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The bibliometric measure impact factor is a leading indicator of journal influence, and impact factors are routinely used in making decisions ranging from selecting journal subscriptions to allocating research funding to deciding tenure cases. Yet journal impact factors have increased gradually over time, and moreover impact factors vary widely across academic disciplines. Here we quantify inflation over time and differences across fields in impact factor scores and determine the sources of these differences. We find that the average number of citations in reference lists has increased gradually, and this is the predominant factor responsible for the inflation of impact factor scores over time. Field-specific variation in the fraction of citations to literature indexed by Thomson Scientific's Journal Citation Reports is the single greatest contributor to differences among the impact factors of journals in different fields. The growth rate of the scientific literature as a whole, and cross-field differences in net size and growth rate of individual fields, have had very little influence on impact factor inflation or on cross-field differences in impact factor.

Date

23. 2.2009 18:22:28

0.052891143 = product of:
  0.105782285 = sum of:
    0.105782285 = sum of:
      0.0711665 = weight(_text_:journals in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0711665 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.2773772 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.03461579 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03461579 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.

0.052891143 = product of:
  0.105782285 = sum of:
    0.105782285 = sum of:
      0.0711665 = weight(_text_:journals in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0711665 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.2773772 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
      0.03461579 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03461579 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.

0.052296486 = product of:
  0.10459297 = sum of:
    0.10459297 = product of:
      0.20918594 = sum of:
        0.20918594 = weight(_text_:journals in 4895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20918594 = score(doc=4895,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.8153191 = fieldWeight in 4895, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this research is to report on research undertaken into the use made of library and information science (LIS) journals in dissertations written by students undertaking the Master's course in Information and Library Studies at the University of Wales Aberystwyth. Design/methodology/approach - Analysis of the citations of 100 (post 2000) dissertations submitted gives an indication of the range of material used in dissertations. In addition, responses to questionnaires from students provide information about how relevant papers are found from LIS journals. Findings - Journals with a practical bias were cited more than research-oriented journals. Lists of the most "popular" journal titles are included. Originality/value - The research provides a "snapshot" of the use made of LIS journals by Master's students in their dissertations.

0.050322324 = product of:
  0.10064465 = sum of:
    0.10064465 = product of:
      0.2012893 = sum of:
        0.2012893 = weight(_text_:journals in 2227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2012893 = score(doc=2227,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.78454125 = fieldWeight in 2227, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Garfield (Impact) Factor (GF) is one of the most frequently used scientometric indicators. In the present article it is shown that the main factors determining the value of the mean GF representing a set of journals are the number of articles published recently (articles referencing) related to those published in a previous time period (articles to be referenced) and the mean number of references in journal papers referring to the time period selected. It has been proved further that GF corresponds to the mean chance for citedness of journal papers. A new indicator, Specific Impact Contribution (SIC), is introduced, which characterizes the contribution of a subset of articles or a journal to the total impact of the respective articles or journals. The SIC Index relates the share of a journal in citations divided by that in publications within a set of papers or journals appropriately selected. It is shown, however, that the normalized GFs of journals and the normalized SIC indicators are identical measures within any set of journals selected. It may be stated therefore that Garfield Factors of journals (calculated correctly) are appropriate scientometric measures for characterizing the relative international eminence of journals within a set of journals appropriately selected. It is demonstrated further that SIC indicators (and so GF indexes) correspond to the (number of citations per paper) indicators generally used, within the same set of papers.

0.049816553 = product of:
  0.099633105 = sum of:
    0.099633105 = product of:
      0.19926621 = sum of:
        0.19926621 = weight(_text_:journals in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19926621 = score(doc=1249,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.77665615 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Can the inclusion of new journals in the Science Citation Index be used for the indication of structural change in the database, and how can this change be compared with reorganizations of reiations among previously included journals? Change in the number of journals (n) is distinguished from change in the number of journal categories (m). Although the number of journals can be considered as a given at each moment in time, the number of journal categories is based an a reconstruction that is time-stamped ex post. The reflexive reconstruction is in need of an update when new information becomes available in a next year. Implications of this shift towards an evolutionary perspective are specified.

0.047739945 = product of:
  0.09547989 = sum of:
    0.09547989 = product of:
      0.19095978 = sum of:
        0.19095978 = weight(_text_:journals in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19095978 = score(doc=211,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.7442812 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A measure of formal journal utility designed to offset some of the more noteworthy limitations of the impact factor (IF) - i.e., short follow-up, citations to items in the numerator that are not included in the denominator, self-citations, and the greater citation rate of review articles - was constructed and applied to 15 crime-psychology journals. This measure, referred to as Citations Per Article (CPA), was correlated with a measure of informal journal utility defined as the frequency with which 58 first authors in the field consulted these 15 crime-psychology journals. Results indicated that the CPA, but not the IF, correlated significantly with informal utility. Two journals (Law and Human Behavior and Criminal Justice and Behavior) displayed consistently high impact across measures of formal and informal utility while several other journals (Journal of Interpersonal Violence; Psychology, Public Policy, and Law; Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment; and Behavioral Sciences and the Law) showed signs of moderate impact when formal and informal measures were combined.

0.047739945 = product of:
  0.09547989 = sum of:
    0.09547989 = product of:
      0.19095978 = sum of:
        0.19095978 = weight(_text_:journals in 75) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19095978 = score(doc=75,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.7442812 = fieldWeight in 75, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=75)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We investigated how citations from documents labeled by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) as "editorial material" contribute to the impact factor of academic journals in which they were published. Our analysis is based on records corresponding to the documents classified by the ISI as editorial material published in journals covered by the Social Sciences Citation Index between 1999 and 2003 (50,273 records corresponding to editorial material published in 2,374 journals). The results appear to rule out widespread manipulation of the impact factor by academic journals publishing large amounts of editorial material with many citations to the journal itself as a strategy to increase the impact factor.

0.047739945 = product of:
  0.09547989 = sum of:
    0.09547989 = product of:
      0.19095978 = sum of:
        0.19095978 = weight(_text_:journals in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19095978 = score(doc=453,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.7442812 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In addition to science citation indicators of journals like impact and immediacy, social network analysis provides a set of centrality measures like degree, betweenness, and closeness centrality. These measures are first analyzed for the entire set of 7,379 journals included in the Journal Citation Reports of the Science Citation Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index 2004 (Thomson ISI, Philadelphia, PA), and then also in relation to local citation environments that can be considered as proxies of specialties and disciplines. Betweenness centrality is shown to be an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals, but only in local citation environments and after normalization; otherwise, the influence of degree centrality (size) overshadows the betweenness-centrality measure. The indicator is applied to a variety of citation environments, including policy-relevant ones like biotechnology and nanotechnology. The values of the indicator remain sensitive to the delineations of the set because of the indicator's local character. Maps showing interdisciplinarity of journals in terms of betweenness centrality can be drawn using information about journal citation environments, which is available online.

0.04500965 = product of:
  0.0900193 = sum of:
    0.0900193 = product of:
      0.1800386 = sum of:
        0.1800386 = weight(_text_:journals in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1800386 = score(doc=2343,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.701715 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics in scholarly communication in library and information science (LIS) journals. Design/methodology/approach - The research is based on a reader survey, a citation analysis and an editor survey. The reader survey identifies both differences in journal rankings between practitioners and academics and the contribution of practitioners to LIS journals. The editor survey provides the proportions of practitioners and academics for the journals. The citation analysis shows the disparities in information exchange between the journals mainly preferred by practitioners and those more favoured by academics. Furthermore, it is possible to explore if practitioner journals differ from academic journals in the citation indicators and in other data collected in the editor survey. Findings - It is found that: practitioners play an active role both as readers and as authors of articles in LIS journals; there is only a low level of information exchange between practitioner and academic journals; the placement of advertisements, the size of the editorial board, requirements concerning an extensive bibliography, the number and the half-life of the references show a clear distinction between practitioner and academic journals. Interestingly, the impact factor did not turn out to be a good indicator to differentiate a practitioner from an academic journal. Research limitations/implications - This research is only exploratory because it is based on separate studies previously conducted. Further research is also needed to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics more deeply. Originality/value - The value of this paper lies in bringing together the findings from complementary studies (reader survey, editor survey and citation analysis) and identifying hypotheses for future research, especially with regards to the roles of and interactions between LIS practitioners and academics in scholarly communication.

0.04358041 = product of:
  0.08716082 = sum of:
    0.08716082 = product of:
      0.17432164 = sum of:
        0.17432164 = weight(_text_:journals in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17432164 = score(doc=1350,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.67943263 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Stressing that some universities have adopted unrealistic requirements for tenure of information systems (IS) faculty members, a recent editorial in MIS Quarterly contends that the group of premier IS journals needs to be generally recognized as having more than just two members. This article introduces the publication power approach to identifying the premier IS journals, and it does indeed find that there are more than two. A journal's publication power is calculated from the actual publishing behaviors of full-time, tenured IS faculty members at a sizable set of leading research universities. The underlying premise is that these researchers produce excellent work, collectively spanning the IS field's subject matter, and that the greatest concentrations of their collective work appear in highest visibility, most important journals suitable for its subject matter. The new empirically based approach to identifying premier IS journals (and, more broadly, identifying journals that figure most prominently in publishing activity of tenured IS researchers) offers an attractive alternative to promulgations by individuals or cliques (possibly based on outdated tradition or vested interests), to opinion surveys (subjective, possibly ill-informed, vague about rating criteria, and/or biased in various ways), and to citation analyses (which ignore semantics of references and, in the case of ISI impact factors, have additional problems that cast considerable doubt on their meaningfulness within the IS field and its subdisciplines). Results of the publication power approach can be applied and supplemented according to needs of a particular university in setting its evaluation standards for IS tenure, promotion, and merit decisions.

0.043142404 = product of:
  0.08628481 = sum of:
    0.08628481 = product of:
      0.17256962 = sum of:
        0.17256962 = weight(_text_:journals in 5180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17256962 = score(doc=5180,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.672604 = fieldWeight in 5180, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the second bibliometric paper SzavaKovtas uses ``indirectcollective references, ICR'' to mean such instances as those in which an author refers to, ``the references contained therein,'' when referring to another source. Having previously shown a high instance of occurrences in Physical Reviews, he now uses the January 1997 issues of 40 journals from the ISI physics category plus two optics journals, an instrumentation journal, and a physics journal launched in 1997, to locate ICR. The phenomena exists in all but one of the sampled journals and in the next, but unsampled, issue of that journal. Overall 17% of papers sampled display ICR with little fluctuation within internal categories.

0.043142404 = product of:
  0.08628481 = sum of:
    0.08628481 = product of:
      0.17256962 = sum of:
        0.17256962 = weight(_text_:journals in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17256962 = score(doc=2622,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.672604 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, we analyze the citations to articles published in 11 biological and medical journals from 2003 to 2007 that employ author-choice open-access models. Controlling for known explanatory predictors of citations, only 2 of the 11 journals show positive and significant open-access effects. Analyzing all journals together, we report a small but significant increase in article citations of 17%. In addition, there is strong evidence to suggest that the open-access advantage is declining by about 7% per year, from 32% in 2004 to 11% in 2007.