Search (75 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Ntuli, H.; Inglesi-Lotz, R.; Chang, T.; Pouris, A.: Does research output cause economic growth or vice versa? : evidence from 34 OECD countries (2015) 0.04 
    0.035230905 = product of:
  0.105692714 = sum of:
    0.105692714 = sum of:
      0.06721917 = weight(_text_:group in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06721917 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.30684334 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
      0.03847355 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03847355 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2132, 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=2132)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The causal relation between research and economic growth is of particular importance for political support of science and technology as well as for academic purposes. This article revisits the causal relationship between research articles published and economic growth in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries for the period 1981-2011, using bootstrap panel causality analysis, which accounts for cross-section dependency and heterogeneity across countries. The article, by the use of the specific method and the choice of the country group, makes a contribution to the existing literature. Our empirical results support unidirectional causality running from research output (in terms of total number of articles published) to economic growth for the US, Finland, Hungary, and Mexico; the opposite causality from economic growth to research articles published for Canada, France, Italy, New Zealand, the UK, Austria, Israel, and Poland; and no causality for the rest of the countries. Our findings provide important policy implications for research policies and strategies for OECD countries.
    Date
    8. 7.2015 22:00:42
  2. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor : normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science (2011) 0.03 
    0.029359091 = product of:
  0.08807727 = sum of:
    0.08807727 = sum of:
      0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056015976 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
      0.032061294 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032061294 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:51:07
  3. Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017) 0.03 
    0.029359091 = product of:
  0.08807727 = sum of:
    0.08807727 = sum of:
      0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056015976 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
      0.032061294 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032061294 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4410, 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=4410)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between dissemination of research papers on Twitter and its influence on research impact. Design/methodology/approach Four types of journal Twitter accounts (journal, owner, publisher and no Twitter account) were defined to observe differences in the number of tweets and citations. In total, 4,176 articles from 350 journals were extracted from Plum Analytics. This altmetric provider tracks the number of tweets and citations for each paper. Student's t-test for two-paired samples was used to detect significant differences between each group of journals. Regression analysis was performed to detect which variables may influence the getting of tweets and citations. Findings The results show that journals with their own Twitter account obtain more tweets (46 percent) and citations (34 percent) than journals without a Twitter account. Followers is the variable that attracts more tweets (ß=0.47) and citations (ß=0.28) but the effect is small and the fit is not good for tweets (R2=0.46) and insignificant for citations (R2=0.18). Originality/value This is the first study that tests the performance of research journals on Twitter according to their handles, observing how the dissemination of content in this microblogging network influences the citation of their papers.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  4. Chen, R.H.-G.; Chen, C.-M.: Visualizing the world's scientific publications (2016) 0.02 
    0.018671993 = product of:
  0.056015976 = sum of:
    0.056015976 = product of:
      0.11203195 = sum of:
        0.11203195 = weight(_text_:group in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11203195 = score(doc=3124,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.5114056 = fieldWeight in 3124, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Automated methods for the analysis, modeling, and visualization of large-scale scientometric data provide measures that enable the depiction of the state of world scientific development. We aimed to integrate minimum span clustering (MSC) and minimum spanning tree methods to cluster and visualize the global pattern of scientific publications (PSP) by analyzing aggregated Science Citation Index (SCI) data from 1994 to 2011. We hypothesized that PSP clustering is mainly affected by countries' geographic location, ethnicity, and level of economic development, as indicated in previous studies. Our results showed that the 100 countries with the highest rates of publications were decomposed into 12 PSP groups and that countries within a group tended to be geographically proximal, ethnically similar, or comparable in terms of economic status. Hubs and bridging nodes in each knowledge production group were identified. The performance of each group was evaluated across 16 knowledge domains based on their specialization, volume of publications, and relative impact. Awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of each group in various knowledge domains may have useful applications for examining scientific policies, adjusting the allocation of resources, and promoting international collaboration for future developments.
  5. Botting, N.; Dipper, L.; Hilari, K.: ¬The effect of social media promotion on academic article uptake (2017) 0.02 
    0.018671993 = product of:
  0.056015976 = sum of:
    0.056015976 = product of:
      0.11203195 = sum of:
        0.11203195 = weight(_text_:group in 3522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11203195 = score(doc=3522,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.5114056 = fieldWeight in 3522, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3522)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Important emerging measures of academic impact are article download and citation rates. Yet little is known about the influences on these and ways in which academics might manage this approach to dissemination. Three groups of papers by academics in a center for speech-language-science (available through a university repository) were compared. The first group of target papers were blogged, and the blogs were systematically tweeted. The second group of connected control papers were nonblogged papers that we carefully matched for author, topic, and year of publication. The third group were papers by different staff members on a variety of topics-Unrelated Control Papers. The results suggest an effect of social media on download rate, which was limited not just to Target Papers but also generalized to Connected Control Papers. Unrelated Control Papers showed no increase over the same amount of time (main effect of time, F(1,27)?=?55.6, p?<?.001); Significant Group×Time Interaction, F(2,27)?=?7.9, p?=?.002). The effect on citation rates was less clear but followed the same trend. The only predictor of the 2015 citation rate was downloads after blogging (r?=?0.450, p?=?.012). These preliminary results suggest that promotion of academic articles via social media may enhance download and citation rate and that this has implications for impact strategies.
  6. Liu, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Knowledge diffusion through publications and citations : a case study using ESI-fields as unit of diffusion (2010) 0.01 
    0.013203094 = product of:
  0.03960928 = sum of:
    0.03960928 = product of:
      0.07921856 = sum of:
        0.07921856 = weight(_text_:group in 3334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07921856 = score(doc=3334,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.36161837 = fieldWeight in 3334, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3334)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Two forms of diffusion are studied: diffusion by publications, originating from the fact that a group publishes in different fields; and diffusion by citations, originating from the fact that the group's publications are cited in different fields. The first form of diffusion originates from an internal mechanism by which the group itself expands its own borders. The second form is partly driven by an external mechanism, in the sense that other fields use or become interested in the original group's expertise, and partly by the group's internal dynamism, in the sense that their articles, being published in more and more fields, have the potential to be applied in these other fields. In this contribution, we focus on basic counting measures as measures of diffusion. We introduce the notions of field diffusion breadth, defined as the number of for Essential Science Indicators (ESI) fields in which a set of articles is cited, and field diffusion intensity, defined as the number of citing articles in one particular ESI field. Combined effects of publications and citations can be measured by the Gini evenness measure. Our approach is illustrated by a study of mathematics at Tongji University (Shanghai, China).
  7. Baumgartner, S.E.; Leydesdorff, L.: Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) of citations in scholarly literature : dynamic qualities of "transient" and "sticky knowledge claims" (2014) 0.01 
    0.013203094 = product of:
  0.03960928 = sum of:
    0.03960928 = product of:
      0.07921856 = sum of:
        0.07921856 = weight(_text_:group in 1241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07921856 = score(doc=1241,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.36161837 = fieldWeight in 1241, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1241)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) is applied to the citation curves of articles in six journals and to all citable items in a single field of science (virology, 24 journals) to distinguish among the developmental trajectories in subpopulations. Can citation patterns of highly-cited papers be distinguished in an early phase as "fast-breaking" papers? Can "late bloomers" or "sleeping beauties" be identified? Most interesting, we find differences between "sticky knowledge claims" that continue to be cited more than 10 years after publication and "transient knowledge claims" that show a decay pattern after reaching a peak within a few years. Only papers following the trajectory of a "sticky knowledge claim" can be expected to have a sustained impact. These findings raise questions about indicators of "excellence" that use aggregated citation rates after 2 or 3 years (e.g., impact factors). Because aggregated citation curves can also be composites of the two patterns, fifth-order polynomials (with four bending points) are needed to capture citation curves precisely. For the journals under study, the most frequently cited groups were furthermore much smaller than 10%. Although GBTM has proved a useful method for investigating differences among citation trajectories, the methodology does not allow us to define a percentage of highly cited papers inductively across different fields and journals. Using multinomial logistic regression, we conclude that predictor variables such as journal names, number of authors, etc., do not affect the stickiness of knowledge claims in terms of citations but only the levels of aggregated citations (which are field-specific).
  8. Mutz, R.; Wolbring, T.; Daniel, H.-D.: ¬The effect of the "very important paper" (VIP) designation in Angewandte Chemie International Edition on citation impact : a propensity score matching analysis (2017) 0.01 
    0.013203094 = product of:
  0.03960928 = sum of:
    0.03960928 = product of:
      0.07921856 = sum of:
        0.07921856 = weight(_text_:group in 3792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07921856 = score(doc=3792,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.36161837 = fieldWeight in 3792, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3792)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Scientific journals publish an increasing number of articles every year. To steer readers' attention to the most important papers, journals use several techniques (e.g., lead paper). Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC), a leading international journal in chemistry, signals high-quality papers through designating them as a "very important paper" (VIP). This study aims to investigate the citation impact of Communications in AC receiving the special feature VIP, both cumulated and over time. Using propensity score matching, treatment group (VIP) and control group (non-VIP) were balanced for 14 covariates to estimate the unconfounded "average treatment effect on the treated" for the VIP designation. Out of N = 3,011 Communications published in 2007 and 2008, N = 207 received the special feature VIP. For each Communication, data were collected from AC (e.g., referees' ratings) and from the databases Chemical Abstracts (e.g., sections) and the Web of Science (e.g., citations). The estimated unconfounded average treatment effect on the treated (that is, Communications designated as a VIP) was statistically significant and amounted to 19.83 citations. In addition, the special feature VIP fostered the cumulated annual citation growth. For instance, the time until a Communication reached its maximum annual number of citations, was reduced.
  9. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.01 
    0.012824517 = product of:
  0.03847355 = sum of:
    0.03847355 = product of:
      0.0769471 = sum of:
        0.0769471 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0769471 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, 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=1239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  10. Huang, M.-H.; Tang, M.-C.; Chen, D.-Z.: Inequality of publishing performance and international collaboration in physics (2011) 0.01 
    0.011203195 = product of:
  0.033609584 = sum of:
    0.033609584 = product of:
      0.06721917 = sum of:
        0.06721917 = weight(_text_:group in 4467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06721917 = score(doc=4467,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.30684334 = fieldWeight in 4467, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Using a database of 1.4 million papers indexed by Web of Science, we examined the global trends in publication inequality and international collaboration in physics. The publication output and citations received by authors hosted in each country were taken into account. Although inequality decreased over time, further progress toward equality has somewhat abated in recent years. The skewedness of the global distribution in publication output was shown to be correlated with article impact, that is, the inequality is more significant in articles of higher impact. It was also observed that, despite the trend toward more equalitarian distribution, scholarly participation in physics is still determined by a select group. Particularly noteworthy has been China's rapid growth in publication outputs and a gradual improvement in its impact. Finally, the data also suggested regional differences in scientific collaboration. A distinctively high concentration of transnational collaboration and publication performance was found among EU countries.
  11. Leydesdorff, L.; Radicchi, F.; Bornmann, L.; Castellano, C.; Nooy, W. de: Field-normalized impact factors (IFs) : a comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs (2013) 0.01 
    0.011203195 = product of:
  0.033609584 = sum of:
    0.033609584 = product of:
      0.06721917 = sum of:
        0.06721917 = weight(_text_:group in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06721917 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.30684334 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.
  12. Winnink, J.J.; Tijssen, R.J.W.; Raan, F.J. van: Theory-changing breakthroughs in science : the impact of research teamwork on scientific discoveries (2016) 0.01 
    0.011203195 = product of:
  0.033609584 = sum of:
    0.033609584 = product of:
      0.06721917 = sum of:
        0.06721917 = weight(_text_:group in 2898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06721917 = score(doc=2898,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.30684334 = fieldWeight in 2898, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2898)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    We have developed and tested an evidence-based method for early-stage identification of scientific discoveries. Scholarly publications are analyzed to track and trace breakthrough processes as well as their impact on world science. The focus in this study is on the incremental discovery of the ubiquitin-mediated proteolytic system in the late 1970s by a small international team of collaborating researchers. Analysis of their groundbreaking research articles, all produced within a relatively short period of time, and the network of citing articles shows the cumulative effects of the intense collaboration within a small group of researchers working on the same subject. Using bibliographic data from the Web of Science database and the PATSTAT patents database in combination with expert opinions shows that these discoveries accumulated into a new technology. These first findings suggest that potential breakthrough discoveries can be identified at a relatively early stage by careful analysis of publication and citation patterns.
  13. Hernandez-Garcia, Y.I.; Chamizo, J.A.; Kleiche-Dray, M.; Russell, J.M.: ¬The scientific impact of mexican steroid research 1935-1965 : a bibliometric and historiographic analysis (2016) 0.01 
    0.011203195 = product of:
  0.033609584 = sum of:
    0.033609584 = product of:
      0.06721917 = sum of:
        0.06721917 = weight(_text_:group in 2901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06721917 = score(doc=2901,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.30684334 = fieldWeight in 2901, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2901)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    We studied steroid research from 1935 to 1965 that led to the discovery of the contraceptive pill and cortisone. Bibliometric and patent file searches indicate that the Syntex industrial laboratory located in Mexico and the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) produced about 54% of the relevant papers published in mainstream journals, which in turn generated over 80% of the citations and in the case of Syntex, all industrial patents in the field between 1950 and 1965. This course of events, which was unprecedented at that time in a developing country, was interrupted when Syntex moved its research division to the US, leaving Mexico with a small but productive research group in the chemistry of natural products.
  14. Zhai, Y; Ding, Y.; Wang, F.: Measuring the diffusion of an innovation : a citation analysis (2018) 0.01 
    0.011203195 = product of:
  0.033609584 = sum of:
    0.033609584 = product of:
      0.06721917 = sum of:
        0.06721917 = weight(_text_:group in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06721917 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.30684334 = fieldWeight in 4116, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Innovations transform our research traditions and become the driving force to advance individual, group, and social creativity. Meanwhile, interdisciplinary research is increasingly being promoted as a route to advance the complex challenges we face as a society. In this paper, we use Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) citation as a proxy context for the diffusion of an innovation. With an analysis of topic evolution, we divide the diffusion process into five stages: testing and evaluation, implementation, improvement, extending, and fading. Through a correlation analysis of topic and subject, we show the application of LDA in different subjects. We also reveal the cross-boundary diffusion between different subjects based on the analysis of the interdisciplinary studies. The results show that as LDA is transferred into different areas, the adoption of each subject is relatively adjacent to those with similar research interests. Our findings further support researchers' understanding of the impact formation of innovation.
  15. Haddow, G.; Hammarfelt, B.: Quality, impact, and quantification : indicators and metrics use by social scientists (2019) 0.01 
    0.011203195 = product of:
  0.033609584 = sum of:
    0.033609584 = product of:
      0.06721917 = sum of:
        0.06721917 = weight(_text_:group in 4671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06721917 = score(doc=4671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.30684334 = fieldWeight in 4671, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The use of indicators and metrics for research evaluation purposes is well-documented; however, less is known about their use by individual scholars. With a focus on the social sciences, this article contributes to the existing literature on indicators and metrics use in fields with diverse publication practices. Scholars in Australia and Sweden were asked about their use and reasons for using metrics. A total of 581 completed surveys were analyzed to generate descriptive statistics, with textual analysis performed on comments provided to open questions. While just under half of the participant group had used metrics, the Australians reported use in twice the proportion of their Swedish peers. Institutional policies and processes were frequently associated with use, and the scholars' comments suggest a high level of awareness of some metrics as well as strategic behavior in demonstrating research performance. There is also evidence of tensions between scholars' research evaluation environment and their disciplinary values and publication practices.
  16. Schreiber, M.: Inconsistencies of recently proposed citation impact indicators and how to avoid them (2012) 0.01 
    0.009335997 = product of:
  0.028007988 = sum of:
    0.028007988 = product of:
      0.056015976 = sum of:
        0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056015976 = score(doc=459,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 459, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=459)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    It is shown that under certain circumstances in particular for small data sets, the recently proposed citation impact indicators I3(6PR) and R(6,k) behave inconsistently when additional papers or citations are taken into consideration. Three simple examples are presented, in which the indicators fluctuate strongly and the ranking of scientists in the evaluated group is sometimes completely mixed up by minor changes in the database. The erratic behavior is traced to the specific way in which weights are attributed to the six percentile rank classes, specifically for the tied papers. For 100 percentile rank classes, the effects will be less serious. For the six classes, it is demonstrated that a different way of assigning weights avoids these problems, although the nonlinearity of the weights for the different percentile rank classes can still lead to (much less frequent) changes in the ranking. This behavior is not undesired because it can be used to correct for differences in citation behavior in different fields. Remaining deviations from the theoretical value R(6,k) = 1.91 can be avoided by a new scoring rule: the fractional scoring. Previously proposed consistency criteria are amended by another property of strict independence at which a performance indicator should aim.
  17. García, J.A.; Rodríguez-Sánchez, R.; Fdez-Valdivia, J.; Robinson-García, N.; Torres-Salinas, D.: Mapping academic institutions according to their journal publication profile : Spanish universities as a case study (2012) 0.01 
    0.009335997 = product of:
  0.028007988 = sum of:
    0.028007988 = product of:
      0.056015976 = sum of:
        0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056015976 = score(doc=500,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 500, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=500)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    We introduce a novel methodology for mapping academic institutions based on their journal publication profiles. We believe that journals in which researchers from academic institutions publish their works can be considered as useful identifiers for representing the relationships between these institutions and establishing comparisons. However, when academic journals are used for research output representation, distinctions must be introduced between them, based on their value as institution descriptors. This leads us to the use of journal weights attached to the institution identifiers. Since a journal in which researchers from a large proportion of institutions published their papers may be a bad indicator of similarity between two academic institutions, it seems reasonable to weight it in accordance with how frequently researchers from different institutions published their papers in this journal. Cluster analysis can then be applied to group the academic institutions, and dendrograms can be provided to illustrate groups of institutions following agglomerative hierarchical clustering. In order to test this methodology, we use a sample of Spanish universities as a case study. We first map the study sample according to an institution's overall research output, then we use it for two scientific fields (Information and Communication Technologies, as well as Medicine and Pharmacology) as a means to demonstrate how our methodology can be applied, not only for analyzing institutions as a whole, but also in different disciplinary contexts.
  18. López-Cózar, E.D.; Robinson-García, N.R.; Torres-Salinas, D.: ¬The Google scholar experiment : how to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators (2014) 0.01 
    0.009335997 = product of:
  0.028007988 = sum of:
    0.028007988 = product of:
      0.056015976 = sum of:
        0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 1213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056015976 = score(doc=1213,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 1213, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1213)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Google Scholar has been well received by the research community. Its promises of free, universal, and easy access to scientific literature coupled with the perception that it covers the social sciences and the humanities better than other traditional multidisciplinary databases have contributed to the quick expansion of Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: 2 new bibliometric products that offer citation data at the individual level and at journal level. In this article, we show the results of an experiment undertaken to analyze Google Scholar's capacity to detect citation-counting manipulation. For this, we uploaded 6 documents to an institutional web domain that were authored by a fictitious researcher and referenced all the publications of the members of the EC3 research group at the University of Granada. The detection by Google Scholar of these papers caused an outburst in the number of citations included in the Google Scholar Citations profiles of the authors. We discuss the effects of such an outburst and how it could affect the future development of such products, at both the individual level and the journal level, especially if Google Scholar persists with its lack of transparency.
  19. Larivière, V.; Lozano, G.A.; Gingras, Y.: Are elite journals declining? (2014) 0.01 
    0.009335997 = product of:
  0.028007988 = sum of:
    0.028007988 = product of:
      0.056015976 = sum of:
        0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 1228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056015976 = score(doc=1228,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 1228, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1228)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Previous research indicates that during the past 20 years, the highest-quality work has been published in an increasingly diverse and larger group of journals. In this article, we examine whether this diversification has also affected the handful of elite journals that are traditionally considered to be the best. We examine citation patterns during the past 40 years of seven long-standing traditionally elite journals and six journals that have been increasing in importance during the past 20 years. To be among the top 5% or 1% cited papers, papers now need about twice as many citations as they did 40 years ago. Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, elite journals have been publishing a decreasing proportion of these top-cited papers. This also applies to the two journals that are typically considered as the top venues and often used as bibliometric indicators of "excellence": Science and Nature. On the other hand, several new and established journals are publishing an increasing proportion of the most-cited papers. These changes bring new challenges and opportunities for all parties. Journals can enact policies to increase or maintain their relative position in the journal hierarchy. Researchers now have the option to publish in more diverse venues knowing that their work can still reach the same audiences. Finally, evaluators and administrators need to know that although there will always be a certain prestige associated with publishing in "elite" journals, journal hierarchies are in constant flux.
  20. Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.; Leydesdorff, L.: BRICS countries and scientific excellence : a bibliometric analysis of most frequently cited papers (2015) 0.01 
    0.009335997 = product of:
  0.028007988 = sum of:
    0.028007988 = product of:
      0.056015976 = sum of:
        0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056015976 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are notable for their increasing participation in science and technology. The governments of these countries have been boosting their investments in research and development to become part of the group of nations doing research at a world-class level. This study investigates the development of the BRICS countries in the domain of top-cited papers (top 10% and 1% most frequently cited papers) between 1990 and 2010. To assess the extent to which these countries have become important players at the top level, we compare the BRICS countries with the top-performing countries worldwide. As the analyses of the (annual) growth rates show, with the exception of Russia, the BRICS countries have increased their output in terms of most frequently cited papers at a higher rate than the top-cited countries worldwide. By way of additional analysis, we generate coauthorship networks among authors of highly cited papers for 4 time points to view changes in BRICS participation (1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010). Here, the results show that all BRICS countries succeeded in becoming part of this network, whereby the Chinese collaboration activities focus on the US.

Authors

Languages

  • e 72
  • d 3
  • More… Less…

Themes