Search (86 results, page 1 of 5)

0.07185413 = product of:
  0.28741652 = sum of:
    0.28741652 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28741652 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38355064 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.

0.05230458 = product of:
  0.10460916 = sum of:
    0.08622071 = weight(_text_:policy in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08622071 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
    0.018388446 = product of:
      0.036776893 = sum of:
        0.036776893 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036776893 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04524064 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.037334666 = product of:
  0.14933866 = sum of:
    0.14933866 = weight(_text_:policy in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14933866 = score(doc=3574,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.6156448 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Despite over 10 years of research there is no agreement on the most suitable roles for Webometric indicators in support of research policy and almost no field-based Webometrics. This article partly fills these gaps by analyzing the potential of policy-relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields with the help of 4 case studies. Although Webometrics cannot provide robust indicators of knowledge flows or research impact, it can provide some evidence of networking and mutual awareness. The scope of Webometrics is also relatively wide, including not only research organizations and firms but also intermediary groups like professional associations, Web portals, and government agencies. Webometrics can, therefore, provide evidence about the research process to compliment peer review, bibliometric, and patent indicators: tracking the early, mainly prepublication development of new fields and research funding initiatives, assessing the role and impact of intermediary organizations and the need for new ones, and monitoring the extent of mutual awareness in particular research areas.

0.031112222 = product of:
  0.12444889 = sum of:
    0.12444889 = weight(_text_:policy in 3535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12444889 = score(doc=3535,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.5130373 = fieldWeight in 3535, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3535)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In 1965, Price foresaw the day when a citation-based taxonomy of science and technology would be delineated and correspondingly used for science policy. A taxonomy needs to be comprehensive and accurate if it is to be useful for policy making, especially now that policy makers are utilizing citation-based indicators to evaluate people, institutions and laboratories. Determining the accuracy of a taxonomy, however, remains a challenge. Previous work on the accuracy of partition solutions is sparse, and the results of those studies, although useful, have not been definitive. In this study we compare the accuracies of topic-level taxonomies based on the clustering of documents using direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-citation. Using a set of new gold standards-articles with at least 100 references-we find that direct citation is better at concentrating references than either bibliographic coupling or co-citation. Using the assumption that higher concentrations of references denote more accurate clusters, direct citation thus provides a more accurate representation of the taxonomy of scientific and technical knowledge than either bibliographic coupling or co-citation. We also find that discipline-level taxonomies based on journal schema are highly inaccurate compared to topic-level taxonomies, and recommend against their use.

0.030483626 = product of:
  0.1219345 = sum of:
    0.1219345 = weight(_text_:policy in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1219345 = score(doc=2299,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.50267184 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

How does publication pressure in modern-day universities affect the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in science? By using a worldwide survey among demographers in developed and developing countries, the authors show that the large majority perceive the publication pressure as high, but more so in Anglo-Saxon countries and to a lesser extent in Western Europe. However, scholars see both the pros (upward mobility) and cons (excessive publication and uncitedness, neglect of policy issues, etc.) of the so-called publish-or-perish culture. By measuring behavior in terms of reading and publishing, and perceived extrinsic rewards and stated intrinsic rewards of practicing science, it turns out that publication pressure negatively affects the orientation of demographers towards policy and knowledge sharing. There are no signs that the pressure affects reading and publishing outside the core discipline.

0.025403023 = product of:
  0.10161209 = sum of:
    0.10161209 = weight(_text_:policy in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10161209 = score(doc=4919,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.41889322 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In bibliometrics, the association of "impact" with central-tendency statistics is mistaken. Impacts add up, and citation curves therefore should be integrated instead of averaged. For example, the journals MIS Quarterly and Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology differ by a factor of 2 in terms of their respective impact factors (IF), but the journal with the lower IF has the higher impact. Using percentile ranks (e.g., top-1%, top-10%, etc.), an Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) can be based on integration of the citation curves, but after normalization of the citation curves to the same scale. The results across document sets can be compared as percentages of the total impact of a reference set. Total number of citations, however, should not be used instead because the shape of the citation curves is then not appreciated. I3 can be applied to any document set and any citation window. The results of the integration (summation) are fully decomposable in terms of journals or institutional units such as nations, universities, and so on because percentile ranks are determined at the paper level. In this study, we first compare I3 with IFs for the journals in two Institute for Scientific Information subject categories ("Information Science & Library Science" and "Multidisciplinary Sciences"). The library and information science set is additionally decomposed in terms of nations. Policy implications of this possible paradigm shift in citation impact analysis are specified.

0.025147708 = product of:
  0.10059083 = sum of:
    0.10059083 = weight(_text_:policy in 1994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10059083 = score(doc=1994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.4146831 = fieldWeight in 1994, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1994)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Research evaluation has become routine and often relies on metrics. But it is increasingly driven by data and not by expert judgement. As a result, the procedures that were designed to increase the quality of research are now threatening to damage the scientific system. To support researchers and managers, five experts led by Diana Hicks, professor in the School of Public Policy at Georgia Institute of Technology, and Paul Wouters, director of CWTS at Leiden University, have proposed ten principles for the measurement of research performance: the Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics published as a comment in Nature.

0.025147708 = product of:
  0.10059083 = sum of:
    0.10059083 = weight(_text_:policy in 3442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10059083 = score(doc=3442,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.4146831 = fieldWeight in 3442, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3442)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Thomson Reuters's Web of Science (WoS) began systematically collecting acknowledgment information in August 2008. Since then, bibliometric analysis of funding acknowledgment (FA) has been growing and has aroused intense interest and attention from both academia and policy makers. Examining the distribution of FA by citation index database, by language, and by acknowledgment type, we noted coverage limitations and potential biases in each analysis. We argue that despite its great value, bibliometric analysis of FA should be used with caution.

0.021555178 = product of:
  0.08622071 = sum of:
    0.08622071 = weight(_text_:policy in 3580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08622071 = score(doc=3580,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 3580, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3580)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We argue that the communication structures in the Chinese social sciences have not yet been sufficiently reformed. Citation patterns among Chinese domestic journals in three subject areas - political science and Marxism, library and information science, and economics - are compared with their counterparts internationally. Like their colleagues in the natural and life sciences, Chinese scholars in the social sciences provide fewer references to journal publications than their international counterparts; like their international colleagues, social scientists provide fewer references than natural sciences. The resulting citation networks, therefore, are sparse. Nevertheless, the citation structures clearly suggest that the Chinese social sciences are far less specialized in terms of disciplinary delineations than their international counterparts. Marxism studies are more established than political science in China. In terms of the impact of the Chinese political system on academic fields, disciplines closely related to the political system are less specialized than those weakly related. In the discussion section, we explore reasons that may cause the current stagnation and provide policy recommendations.

0.021555178 = product of:
  0.08622071 = sum of:
    0.08622071 = weight(_text_:policy in 4131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08622071 = score(doc=4131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 4131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4131)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Many countries are moving towards research policies that emphasize excellence; consequently; they develop evaluation systems to identify universities, research groups, and researchers that can be said to be "excellent." Such active research policy strategies, in which evaluations are used to concentrate resources, are based on an unsubstantiated assumption that researchers' track records are indicative of their future research performance. In this study, information on authors' track records (previous publication volume and previous citation rate) is used to predict the impact of their articles. The study concludes that, to a certain degree, the impact of scientific work can be predicted using information on how often an author's previous publications have been cited. The relationship between past performance and the citation rate of articles is strongest at the high end of the citation distribution. The implications of these results are discussed in the context of a cumulative advantage process.

0.021555178 = product of:
  0.08622071 = sum of:
    0.08622071 = weight(_text_:policy in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08622071 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The objective of this research is to examine the interaction of institutions, based on their citation and collaboration networks. The domain of library and information science is examined, using data from 1965-2010. A linear model is formulated to explore the factors that are associated with institutional citation behaviors, using the number of citations as the dependent variable, and the number of collaborations, physical distance, and topical distance as independent variables. It is found that institutional citation behaviors are associated with social, topical, and geographical factors. Dynamically, the number of citations is becoming more associated with collaboration intensity and less dependent on the country boundary and/or physical distance. This research is informative for scientometricians and policy makers.

0.021555178 = product of:
  0.08622071 = sum of:
    0.08622071 = weight(_text_:policy in 242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08622071 = score(doc=242,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 242, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=242)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Characteristics of the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology and 76 other journals listed in the InformationSystems category of the Journal Citation Reports-Science edition 2009 were analyzed. Besides reporting usual bibliographic indicators, we investigated the human cornerstone of any peer-reviewed journal: its editorial board. Demographic data about the 2,846 gatekeepers serving in information systems (IS) editorial boards were collected. We discuss various scientometric indicators supported by descriptive statistics. Our findings reflect the great variety of IS journals in terms of research output, author communities, editorial boards, and gatekeeper demographics (e.g., diversity in gender and location), seniority, authority, and degree of involvement in editorial boards. We believe that these results may help the general public and scholars (e.g., readers, authors, journal gatekeepers, policy makers) to revise and increase their knowledge of scholarly communication in the IS field. The EB_IS_2009 dataset supporting this scientometric study is released as online supplementary material to this article to foster further research on editorial boards.

0.021555178 = product of:
  0.08622071 = sum of:
    0.08622071 = weight(_text_:policy in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08622071 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 1141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1141)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

International collaboration is being heralded as the hallmark of contemporary scientific production. Yet little quantitative evidence has portrayed the landscape and trends of such collaboration. To this end, 14,000,000 documents indexed in Thomson Reuters's Web of Science (WoS) were studied to provide a state-of-the-art description of scientific collaborations across the world. The results indicate that the number of authors in the largest research teams have not significantly grown during the past decade; however, the number of smaller research teams has seen significant increases in growth. In terms of composition, the largest teams have become more diverse than the latter teams and tend more toward interinstitutional and international collaboration. Investigating the size of teams showed large variation between fields. Mapping scientific cooperation at the country level reveals that Western countries situated at the core of the map are extensively cooperating with each other. High-impact institutions are significantly more collaborative than others. This work should inform policy makers, administrators, and those interested in the progression of scientific collaboration.

0.021555178 = product of:
  0.08622071 = sum of:
    0.08622071 = weight(_text_:policy in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08622071 = score(doc=1764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 1764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1764)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to provide a new insight into the reasons why authors cite. Design/methodology/approach The authors argue that, based on philosophical ideas about the essence of things, pure rational thinking about the role of citations leads to the answer. Findings - Citations originate from the interestingness of the investigated phenomenon. The essence of citation lies in the interaction between different ideas or perspectives on a phenomenon addressed in the citing as well as in the cited articles. Research limitations/implications - The findings only apply to ethical (not whimsical or self-serving) citations. As such citations reflect interactions of scientific ideas, they can reveal the evolution of science, revive the cognitive process of an investigated scientific phenomenon and reveal political and economic factors influencing the development of science. Originality/value - This article is the first to propose interestingness and the interaction of ideas as the basic reason for citing. This view on citations allows reverse engineering from citations to ideas and hence becomes useful for science policy.

0.021555178 = product of:
  0.08622071 = sum of:
    0.08622071 = weight(_text_:policy in 2169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08622071 = score(doc=2169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 2169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2169)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

There is increasing evidence that citations to Chinese research publications are rising sharply. A series of reasons have been highlighted in previous studies. This research explores another possibility-whether there is a "clubbing" effect in China's surge in research citations, in which a higher rate of internal citing takes place among influential Chinese researchers. Focusing on the most highly cited research articles in nanotechnology, we find that a larger proportion of Chinese nanotechnology research citations are localized within individual, institutional, and national networks within China. Both descriptive and statistical tests suggest that highly cited Chinese papers are more likely than similar U.S. papers to receive internal and localized citations. Tentative explanations and policy implications are discussed.

0.021555178 = product of:
  0.08622071 = sum of:
    0.08622071 = weight(_text_:policy in 3782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08622071 = score(doc=3782,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 3782, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3782)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

With the rise of Wikipedia as a first-stop source for scientific information, it is important to understand whether Wikipedia draws upon the research that scientists value most. Here we identify the 250 most heavily used journals in each of 26 research fields (4,721 journals, 19.4M articles) indexed by the Scopus database, and test whether topic, academic status, and accessibility make articles from these journals more or less likely to be referenced on Wikipedia. We find that a journal's academic status (impact factor) and accessibility (open access policy) both strongly increase the probability of it being referenced on Wikipedia. Controlling for field and impact factor, the odds that an open access journal is referenced on the English Wikipedia are 47% higher compared to paywall journals. These findings provide evidence is that a major consequence of open access policies is to significantly amplify the diffusion of science, through an intermediary like Wikipedia, to a broad audience.

0.021555178 = product of:
  0.08622071 = sum of:
    0.08622071 = weight(_text_:policy in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08622071 = score(doc=4042,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 4042, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4042)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Detecting emerging research topics is essential, not only for research agencies but also for individual researchers. Previous studies have created various bibliographic indicators for the identification of emerging research topics. However, as indicated by Rotolo et al. (Research Policy 44, 1827-1843, 2015), the most serious problems are the lack of an acknowledged definition of emergence and incomplete elaboration of the linkages between the definitions that are used and the indicators that are created. With these issues in mind, this study first adjusts the definition of an emerging technology that Rotolo et al. (2015) have proposed to accommodate the analysis. Next, a set of criteria for the identification of emerging topics is proposed according to the adjusted definition and attributes of emergence. Using two sets of parameter values, several emerging research topics are identified. Finally, evaluation tests are conducted by demonstration of the proposed approach and comparison with previous studies. The strength of the present methodology lies in the fact that it is fully transparent, straightforward, and flexible.

0.021555178 = product of:
  0.08622071 = sum of:
    0.08622071 = weight(_text_:policy in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08622071 = score(doc=4214,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We investigated the similarities of pairs of articles that are cocited at the different cocitation levels of the journal, article, section, paragraph, sentence, and bracket. Our results indicate that textual similarity, intellectual overlap (shared references), author overlap (shared authors), proximity in publication time all rise monotonically as the cocitation level gets lower (from journal to bracket). While the main gain in similarity happens when moving from journal to article cocitation, all level changes entail an increase in similarity, especially section to paragraph and paragraph to sentence/bracket levels. We compared the results from four journals over the years 2010-2015: Cell, the European Journal of Operational Research, Physics Letters B, and Research Policy, with consistent general outcomes and some interesting differences. Our findings motivate the use of granular cocitation information as defined by meaningful units of text, with implications for, among others, the elaboration of maps of science and the retrieval of scholarly literature.

0.021555178 = product of:
  0.08622071 = sum of:
    0.08622071 = weight(_text_:policy in 4458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08622071 = score(doc=4458,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 4458, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4458)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article1 describes the possibilities to analyze open access (OA) publishing in the Netherlands in an international comparative way. OA publishing is now actively stimulated by Dutch science policy, similar to the United Kingdom. We conducted a bibliometric baseline measurement to assess the current situation, to be able to measure developments over time. We collected data from various sources, and for three different smaller European countries (the Netherlands, Denmark, and Switzerland). Not all of the analyses for this baseline measurement are included here. The analysis presented in this article focuses on the various ways OA can be defined using the Web of Science, limiting the analysis mainly to Gold OA. From the data we collected we can conclude that the way OA is currently registered in various electronic bibliographic databases is quite unclear, and various methods applied deliver results that are different, although the impact scores derived from the data point in the same direction.

0.01796265 = product of:
  0.0718506 = sum of:
    0.0718506 = weight(_text_:policy in 617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0718506 = score(doc=617,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24257277 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04524064 = queryNorm
        0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 617, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=617)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study undertook an exploratory analysis of the relationship between the body of scientific literature associated with HIV/AIDS and the trajectory of the epidemic, measured by the rate of new cases diagnosed annually in the United States for the period covering 1981 to 2009. The body of scientific literature examined in this investigation was constituted from scientific research that developed alongside the epidemic and was extracted from MEDLINE, a bibliographic database of the United States. National Library of Medicine. Content analysis methods were employed for qualitative data reduction, and regression analysis was used to assess whether variation in the trajectory of the epidemic co-occurred with variation in the publication of specific genres of content within the scientific literature relating to HIV/AIDS. The regression model confirmed a statistically significant association between the representative body of HIV/AIDS scientific literature and the epidemic trajectory, and identified three research categories, namely, ameliorative drug treatments, other clinical protocols, and health education, as being most significantly associated with the epidemic trajectory. Implicit in the findings of this study are areas of scientific research that are of functional and practical interest to clinicians, policy makers, the lay public, and contributors to the body of scientific literature.