-
¬Die deutsche Zeitschrift für Dokumentation, Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis von 1950 bis 2011 : eine vorläufige Bilanz in vier Abschnitten (2012)
0.12
0.11684549 = product of:
0.14605686 = sum of:
0.03833152 = weight(_text_:j in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03833152 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.2978903 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
0.057567324 = weight(_text_:u in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057567324 = score(doc=402,freq=8.0), product of:
0.13260265 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.43413407 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
0.033697978 = weight(_text_:b in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033697978 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
0.016460039 = product of:
0.032920077 = sum of:
0.032920077 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032920077 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.8 = coord(4/5)
- Content
- Vgl.: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/iwp.2012.63.issue-3/iwp-2012-0037/iwp-2012-0037.xml?format=INT.
- Date
- 22. 7.2012 19:35:26
- Footnote
- Besteht aus 4 Teilen: Teil 1: Eden, D., A. Arndt, A. Hoffer, T. Raschke u. P. Schön: Die Nachrichten für Dokumentation in den Jahren 1950 bis 1962 (S.159-163). Teil 2: Brose, M., E. durst, D. Nitzsche, D. Veckenstedt u. R. Wein: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1963-1975 (S.164-170). Teil 3: Bösel, J., G. Ebert, P. Garz,, M. Iwanow u. B. Russ: Methoden und Ergebnisse einer statistischen Auswertung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1976 bis 1988 (S.171-174). Teil 4: Engelage, H., S. Jansen, R. Mertins, K. Redel u. S. Ring: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) / "Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis" (IWP) 1989-2011 (S.164-170).
-
Li, J.; Shi, D.: Sleeping beauties in genius work : when were they awakened? (2016)
0.06
0.061158683 = product of:
0.10193113 = sum of:
0.027104476 = weight(_text_:j in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027104476 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
0.058366615 = weight(_text_:b in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058366615 = score(doc=2647,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.40680233 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
0.016460039 = product of:
0.032920077 = sum of:
0.032920077 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032920077 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- "Genius work," proposed by Avramescu, refers to scientific articles whose citations grow exponentially in an extended period, for example, over 50 years. Such articles were defined as "sleeping beauties" by van Raan, who quantitatively studied the phenomenon of delayed recognition. However, the criteria adopted by van Raan at times are not applicable and may confer recognition prematurely. To revise such deficiencies, this paper proposes two new criteria, which are applicable (but not limited) to exponential citation curves. We searched for genius work among articles of Nobel Prize laureates during the period of 1901-2012 on the Web of Science, finding 25 articles of genius work out of 21,438 papers including 10 (by van Raan's criteria) sleeping beauties and 15 nonsleeping-beauties. By our new criteria, two findings were obtained through empirical analysis: (a) the awakening periods for genius work depend on the increase rate b in the exponential function, and (b) lower b leads to a longer sleeping period.
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 14:13:32
-
Karlsson, A.; Hammarfelt, B.; Steinhauer, H.J.; Falkman, G.; Olson, N.; Nelhans, G.; Nolin, J.: Modeling uncertainty in bibliometrics and information retrieval : an information fusion approach (2015)
0.04
0.04053497 = product of:
0.101337425 = sum of:
0.045174126 = weight(_text_:j in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045174126 = score(doc=1696,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.35106707 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
0.0561633 = weight(_text_:b in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0561633 = score(doc=1696,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.3914457 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
-
Riechert, M.; Schmitz, J.: Qualitätssicherung von Forschungsinformationen durch visuelle Repräsentation : das Fallbeispiel des "Informationssystems Promotionsnoten" (2017)
0.03
0.026081134 = product of:
0.06520283 = sum of:
0.03162189 = weight(_text_:j in 3724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03162189 = score(doc=3724,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.24574696 = fieldWeight in 3724, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3724)
0.03358094 = weight(_text_:u in 3724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03358094 = score(doc=3724,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13260265 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.25324488 = fieldWeight in 3724, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3724)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Source
- Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber
-
Chen, C.; Ibekwe-SanJuan, F.; Hou, J.: ¬The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters : a multiple-perspective cocitation analysis (2010)
0.02
0.02432098 = product of:
0.060802452 = sum of:
0.027104476 = weight(_text_:j in 3591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027104476 = score(doc=3591,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 3591, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3591)
0.033697978 = weight(_text_:b in 3591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033697978 = score(doc=3591,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 3591, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3591)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis method is introduced for characterizing and interpreting the structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters. The method facilitates analytic and sense making tasks by integrating network visualization, spectral clustering, automatic cluster labeling, and text summarization. Cocitation networks are decomposed into cocitation clusters. The interpretation of these clusters is augmented by automatic cluster labeling and summarization. The method focuses on the interrelations between a cocitation cluster's members and their citers. The generic method is applied to a three-part analysis of the field of information science as defined by 12 journals published between 1996 and 2008: (a) a comparative author cocitation analysis (ACA), (b) a progressive ACA of a time series of cocitation networks, and (c) a progressive document cocitation analysis (DCA). Results show that the multiple-perspective method increases the interpretability and accountability of both ACA and DCA networks.
-
Albarrán, P.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: Differences in citation impact across countries (2015)
0.02
0.02432098 = product of:
0.060802452 = sum of:
0.027104476 = weight(_text_:j in 1665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027104476 = score(doc=1665,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 1665, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1665)
0.033697978 = weight(_text_:b in 1665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033697978 = score(doc=1665,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 1665, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1665)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Using a large data set, indexed by Thomson Reuters, consisting of 4.4 million articles published in 1998-2003 with a 5-year citation window for each year, this article studies country citation distributions for a partitioning of the world into 36 countries and two geographical areas in eight broad scientific fields and the all-sciences case. The two key findings are the following. First, country citation distributions are highly skewed and very similar to each other in all fields. Second, to a large extent, differences in country citation distributions can be accounted for by scale factors. The Empirical situation described in the article helps to understand why international comparisons of citation impact according to (a) mean citations and (b) the percentage of articles in each country belonging to the top 10% of the most cited articles are so similar to each other.
-
Shi, D.; Rousseau, R.; Yang, L.; Li, J.: ¬A journal's impact factor is influenced by changes in publication delays of citing journals (2017)
0.02
0.022355257 = product of:
0.05588814 = sum of:
0.027104476 = weight(_text_:j in 3441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027104476 = score(doc=3441,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 3441, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3441)
0.028783662 = weight(_text_:u in 3441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028783662 = score(doc=3441,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13260265 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 3441, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3441)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- In this article we describe another problem with journal impact factors by showing that one journal's impact factor is dependent on other journals' publication delays. The proposed theoretical model predicts a monotonically decreasing function of the impact factor as a function of publication delay, on condition that the citation curve of the journal is monotone increasing during the publication window used in the calculation of the journal impact factor; otherwise, this function has a reversed U shape. Our findings based on simulations are verified by examining three journals in the information sciences: the Journal of Informetrics, Scientometrics, and the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
-
Frandsen, T.F.; Nicolaisen, J.: ¬The ripple effect : citation chain reactions of a nobel prize (2013)
0.02
0.021916624 = product of:
0.05479156 = sum of:
0.03833152 = weight(_text_:j in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03833152 = score(doc=654,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.2978903 = fieldWeight in 654, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=654)
0.016460039 = product of:
0.032920077 = sum of:
0.032920077 = weight(_text_:22 in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032920077 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 654, 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=654)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This paper explores the possible citation chain reactions of a Nobel Prize using the mathematician Robert J. Aumann as a case example. The results show that the award of the Nobel Prize in 2005 affected not only the citations to his work, but also affected the citations to the references in his scientific oeuvre. The results indicate that the spillover effect is almost as powerful as the effect itself. We are consequently able to document a ripple effect in which the awarding of the Nobel Prize ignites a citation chain reaction to Aumann's scientific oeuvre and to the references in its nearest citation network. The effect is discussed using innovation decision process theory as a point of departure to identify the factors that created a bandwagon effect leading to the reported observations.
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 16:21:09
-
Schlögl, C.: Internationale Sichtbarkeit der europäischen und insbesondere der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft (2013)
0.02
0.020330107 = product of:
0.050825268 = sum of:
0.03162189 = weight(_text_:j in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03162189 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.24574696 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
0.01920338 = product of:
0.03840676 = sum of:
0.03840676 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03840676 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Content
- Eine englische Version dieses Beitrags erscheint unter dem Titel "International visibility of European and in particular German language publications in library and information science" im Tagungsband des 13. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2013). Vgl.: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/iwp.2013.64.issue-1/iwp-2013-0001/iwp-2013-0001.xml?format=INT.
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 14:04:09
-
Zhang, H.; Qiu, B.; Ivanova, K.; Giles, C.L.; Foley, H.C.; Yen, J.: Locality and attachedness-based temporal social network growth dynamics analysis : a case study of evolving nanotechnology scientific collaboration networks (2010)
0.02
0.020267485 = product of:
0.050668713 = sum of:
0.022587063 = weight(_text_:j in 3455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022587063 = score(doc=3455,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 3455, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3455)
0.02808165 = weight(_text_:b in 3455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02808165 = score(doc=3455,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 3455, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3455)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
-
Arora, S.K.; Li, Y.; Youtie, J.; Shapira, P.: Using the wayback machine to mine websites in the social sciences : a methodological resource (2016)
0.02
0.020267485 = product of:
0.050668713 = sum of:
0.022587063 = weight(_text_:j in 3050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022587063 = score(doc=3050,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 3050, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3050)
0.02808165 = weight(_text_:b in 3050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02808165 = score(doc=3050,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 3050, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3050)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Websites offer an unobtrusive data source for developing and analyzing information about various types of social science phenomena. In this paper, we provide a methodological resource for social scientists looking to expand their toolkit using unstructured web-based text, and in particular, with the Wayback Machine, to access historical website data. After providing a literature review of existing research that uses the Wayback Machine, we put forward a step-by-step description of how the analyst can design a research project using archived websites. We draw on the example of a project that analyzes indicators of innovation activities and strategies in 300 U.S. small- and medium-sized enterprises in green goods industries. We present six steps to access historical Wayback website data: (a) sampling, (b) organizing and defining the boundaries of the web crawl, (c) crawling, (d) website variable operationalization, (e) integration with other data sources, and (f) analysis. Although our examples draw on specific types of firms in green goods industries, the method can be generalized to other areas of research. In discussing the limitations and benefits of using the Wayback Machine, we note that both machine and human effort are essential to developing a high-quality data set from archived web information.
-
McKeown, K.; Daume III, H.; Chaturvedi, S.; Paparrizos, J.; Thadani, K.; Barrio, P.; Biran, O.; Bothe, S.; Collins, M.; Fleischmann, K.R.; Gravano, L.; Jha, R.; King, B.; McInerney, K.; Moon, T.; Neelakantan, A.; O'Seaghdha, D.; Radev, D.; Templeton, C.; Teufel, S.: Predicting the impact of scientific concepts using full-text features (2016)
0.02
0.020267485 = product of:
0.050668713 = sum of:
0.022587063 = weight(_text_:j in 3153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022587063 = score(doc=3153,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 3153, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3153)
0.02808165 = weight(_text_:b in 3153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02808165 = score(doc=3153,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 3153, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3153)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
-
Du, J.; Tang, X.; Wu, Y.: ¬The effects of research level and article type on the differences between citation metrics and F1000 recommendations (2016)
0.02
0.020267485 = product of:
0.050668713 = sum of:
0.022587063 = weight(_text_:j in 3228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022587063 = score(doc=3228,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 3228, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3228)
0.02808165 = weight(_text_:b in 3228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02808165 = score(doc=3228,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 3228, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3228)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- F1000 recommendations were assessed as a potential data source for research evaluation, but the reasons for differences between F1000 Article Factor (FFa scores) and citations remain unexplored. By linking recommendations for 28,254 publications in F1000 with citations in Scopus, we investigated the effect of research level (basic, clinical, mixed) and article type on the internal consistency of assessments based on citations and FFa scores. The research level has little impact on the differences between the 2 evaluation tools, while article type has a big effect. These 2 measures differ significantly for 2 groups: (a) nonprimary research or evidence-based research are more highly cited but not highly recommended, while (b) translational research or transformative research are more highly recommended but have fewer citations. This can be expected, since citation activity is usually practiced by academic authors while the potential for scientific revolutions and the suitability for clinical practice of an article should be investigated from a practitioners' perspective. We conclude with a recommendation that the application of bibliometric approaches in research evaluation should consider the proportion of 3 types of publications: evidence-based research, transformative research, and translational research. The latter 2 types are more suitable for assessment through peer review.
-
Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016)
0.02
0.020267485 = product of:
0.050668713 = sum of:
0.022587063 = weight(_text_:j in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022587063 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.02808165 = weight(_text_:b in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02808165 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Mingers, J.: Statistical significance and effect sizes of differences among research universities at the level of nations and worldwide based on the Leiden rankings (2019)
0.02
0.020267485 = product of:
0.050668713 = sum of:
0.022587063 = weight(_text_:j in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022587063 = score(doc=5225,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5225)
0.02808165 = weight(_text_:b in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02808165 = score(doc=5225,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1434766 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5225)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The Leiden Rankings can be used for grouping research universities by considering universities which are not statistically significantly different as homogeneous sets. The groups and intergroup relations can be analyzed and visualized using tools from network analysis. Using the so-called "excellence indicator" PPtop-10%-the proportion of the top-10% most-highly-cited papers assigned to a university-we pursue a classification using (a) overlapping stability intervals, (b) statistical-significance tests, and (c) effect sizes of differences among 902 universities in 54 countries; we focus on the UK, Germany, Brazil, and the USA as national examples. Although the groupings remain largely the same using different statistical significance levels or overlapping stability intervals, these classifications are uncorrelated with those based on effect sizes. Effect sizes for the differences between universities are small (w < .2). The more detailed analysis of universities at the country level suggests that distinctions beyond three or perhaps four groups of universities (high, middle, low) may not be meaningful. Given similar institutional incentives, isomorphism within each eco-system of universities should not be underestimated. Our results suggest that networks based on overlapping stability intervals can provide a first impression of the relevant groupings among universities. However, the clusters are not well-defined divisions between groups of universities.
-
An, L.; Zhang, J.; Yu, C.: ¬The visual subject analysis of library and information science journals with self-organizing map (2011)
0.02
0.018629381 = product of:
0.046573453 = sum of:
0.022587063 = weight(_text_:j in 4613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022587063 = score(doc=4613,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 4613, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4613)
0.023986388 = weight(_text_:u in 4613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023986388 = score(doc=4613,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13260265 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 4613, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4613)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Academic journals play an important role in scientific communication. The effective organization of journals can help reveal the thematic contents of journals and thus make them more user-friendly. In this study, the Self-Organizing Map (SOM) technique was employed to visually analyze the 60 library and information science-related journals published from 2006 to 2008. The U-matrix by Ultsch (2003) was applied to categorize the journals into 19 clusters according to their subjects. Four journals were recommended to supplement library collections although they were not indexed by SCI/SSCI. A novel SOM display named Attribute Accumulation Matrix (AA-matrix) was proposed, and the results from this method show that they correlate significantly with the total occurrences of the subjects in the investigated journals. The AA-matrix was employed to identify the 86 salient subjects, which could be manually classified into 7 meaningful groups. A method of the Salient Attribute Projection was constructed to label the attribute characteristics of different clusters. Finally, the subject characteristics of the journals with high impact factors (IFs) were also addressed. The findings of this study can lead to a better understanding of the subject structure and characteristics of library/information-related journals.
-
Albarrán, P.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: References made and citations received by scientific articles (2011)
0.02
0.017425805 = product of:
0.043564513 = sum of:
0.027104476 = weight(_text_:j in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027104476 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 4185, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4185)
0.016460039 = product of:
0.032920077 = sum of:
0.032920077 = weight(_text_:22 in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032920077 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4185, 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=4185)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This article studies massive evidence about references made and citations received after a 5-year citation window by 3.7 million articles published in 1998 to 2002 in 22 scientific fields. We find that the distributions of references made and citations received share a number of basic features across sciences. Reference distributions are rather skewed to the right while citation distributions are even more highly skewed: The mean is about 20 percentage points to the right of the median, and articles with a remarkable or an outstanding number of citations represent about 9% of the total. Moreover, the existence of a power law representing the upper tail of citation distributions cannot be rejected in 17 fields whose articles represent 74.7% of the total. Contrary to the evidence in other contexts, the value of the scale parameter is above 3.5 in 13 of the 17 cases. Finally, power laws are typically small, but capture a considerable proportion of the total citations received.
-
Hicks, D.; Wang, J.: Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists (2011)
0.02
0.017425805 = product of:
0.043564513 = sum of:
0.027104476 = weight(_text_:j in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027104476 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 4192, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4192)
0.016460039 = product of:
0.032920077 = sum of:
0.032920077 = weight(_text_:22 in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032920077 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4192, 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=4192)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:21:28
-
Jovanovic, M.: ¬Eine kleine Frühgeschichte der Bibliometrie (2012)
0.02
0.017425805 = product of:
0.043564513 = sum of:
0.027104476 = weight(_text_:j in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027104476 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 326, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=326)
0.016460039 = product of:
0.032920077 = sum of:
0.032920077 = weight(_text_:22 in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032920077 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 326, 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=326)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Content
- Vgl.: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/iwp.2012.63.issue-2/iwp-2012-0017/iwp-2012-0017.xml?format=INT.
- Date
- 22. 7.2012 19:23:32
-
Crespo, J.A.; Herranz, N.; Li, Y.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level (2014)
0.02
0.016794164 = product of:
0.041985407 = sum of:
0.022587063 = weight(_text_:j in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022587063 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
0.019398343 = product of:
0.038796686 = sum of:
0.038796686 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038796686 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04049623 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.
