Search (25 results, page 2 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Jiang, X.; Zhu, X.; Chen, J.: Main path analysis on cyclic citation networks (2020) 0.00
    0.0033821356 = product of:
      0.0067642713 = sum of:
        0.0067642713 = product of:
          0.020292813 = sum of:
            0.020292813 = weight(_text_:12 in 5813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.020292813 = score(doc=5813,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.048018172 = queryNorm
                0.15279384 = fieldWeight in 5813, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5813)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    9. 4.2020 21:12:27
  2. Lu, C.; Zhang, Y.; Ahn, Y.-Y.; Ding, Y.; Zhang, C.; Ma, D.: Co-contributorship network and division of labor in individual scientific collaborations (2020) 0.00
    0.0033821356 = product of:
      0.0067642713 = sum of:
        0.0067642713 = product of:
          0.020292813 = sum of:
            0.020292813 = weight(_text_:12 in 5963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.020292813 = score(doc=5963,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.048018172 = queryNorm
                0.15279384 = fieldWeight in 5963, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5963)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    12. 9.2020 19:10:06
  3. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Do new research issues attract more citations? : a comparison between 25 Scopus subject categories (2021) 0.00
    0.0033821356 = product of:
      0.0067642713 = sum of:
        0.0067642713 = product of:
          0.020292813 = sum of:
            0.020292813 = weight(_text_:12 in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.020292813 = score(doc=157,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.048018172 = queryNorm
                0.15279384 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    8. 3.2021 18:54:12
  4. Kulczycki, E.; Huang, Y.; Zuccala, A.A.; Engels, T.C.E.; Ferrara, A.; Guns, R.; Pölönen, J.; Sivertsen, G.; Taskin, Z.; Zhang, L.: Uses of the Journal Impact Factor in national journal rankings in China and Europe (2022) 0.00
    0.0033821356 = product of:
      0.0067642713 = sum of:
        0.0067642713 = product of:
          0.020292813 = sum of:
            0.020292813 = weight(_text_:12 in 769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.020292813 = score(doc=769,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.048018172 = queryNorm
                0.15279384 = fieldWeight in 769, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=769)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.12, S.1741-1754
  5. Delgado-Quirós, L.; Aguillo, I.F.; Martín-Martín, A.; López-Cózar, E.D.; Orduña-Malea, E.; Ortega, J.L.: Why are these publications missing? : uncovering the reasons behind the exclusion of documents in free-access scholarly databases (2024) 0.00
    0.0033821356 = product of:
      0.0067642713 = sum of:
        0.0067642713 = product of:
          0.020292813 = sum of:
            0.020292813 = weight(_text_:12 in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.020292813 = score(doc=1201,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.048018172 = queryNorm
                0.15279384 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This study analyses the coverage of seven free-access bibliographic databases (Crossref, Dimensions-non-subscription version, Google Scholar, Lens, Microsoft Academic, Scilit, and Semantic Scholar) to identify the potential reasons that might cause the exclusion of scholarly documents and how they could influence coverage. To do this, 116 k randomly selected bibliographic records from Crossref were used as a baseline. API endpoints and web scraping were used to query each database. The results show that coverage differences are mainly caused by the way each service builds their databases. While classic bibliographic databases ingest almost the exact same content from Crossref (Lens and Scilit miss 0.1% and 0.2% of the records, respectively), academic search engines present lower coverage (Google Scholar does not find: 9.8%, Semantic Scholar: 10%, and Microsoft Academic: 12%). Coverage differences are mainly attributed to external factors, such as web accessibility and robot exclusion policies (39.2%-46%), and internal requirements that exclude secondary content (6.5%-11.6%). In the case of Dimensions, the only classic bibliographic database with the lowest coverage (7.6%), internal selection criteria such as the indexation of full books instead of book chapters (65%) and the exclusion of secondary content (15%) are the main motives of missing publications.