Search (67 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Dederke, J.; Hirschmann, B.; Johann, D.: ¬Der Data Citation Index von Clarivate : Eine wertvolle Ressource für die Forschung und für Bibliotheken? (2022) 0.03 
    0.0330986 = product of:
  0.14185114 = sum of:
    0.016555762 = weight(_text_:und in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016555762 = score(doc=50,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.34630734 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
    0.004409519 = weight(_text_:in in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004409519 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
    0.016555762 = weight(_text_:und in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016555762 = score(doc=50,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.34630734 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
    0.033837672 = weight(_text_:bibliotheken in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033837672 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08127756 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.41632247 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
    0.033837672 = weight(_text_:bibliotheken in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033837672 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08127756 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.41632247 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
    0.033837672 = weight(_text_:bibliotheken in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033837672 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08127756 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.41632247 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
    0.0028170836 = weight(_text_:s in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0028170836 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.120123915 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
  0.23333333 = coord(7/30)
    Abstract
    Der Data Citation Index (DCI) stellt eine durchsuchbare Sammlung bibliografischer Metadaten zu Forschungsdaten in Datensätzen und Datenstudien ausgewählter Repositorien dar. Der DCI deckt alle wissenschaftlichen Disziplinen ab.
    Source
    B.I.T. Online. 25(2022) H.1, S.21-
  2. Vakkari, P.; Järvelin, K.; Chang, Y.-W.: ¬The association of disciplinary background with the evolution of topics and methods in Library and Information Science research 1995-2015 (2023) 0.02 
    0.022942342 = product of:
  0.09832432 = sum of:
    0.0118387835 = product of:
      0.023677567 = sum of:
        0.023677567 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023677567 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09615103 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.024179846 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024179846 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09716552 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.023677567 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023677567 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09615103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.023677567 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023677567 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09615103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.006236001 = weight(_text_:in in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006236001 = score(doc=998,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.23333333 = coord(7/30)
    Abstract
    The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:15:06
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.811-827
  3. Järvelin, K.; Vakkari, P.: LIS research across 50 years: content analysis of journal articles : offering an information-centric conception of memes (2022) 0.02 
    0.022607742 = product of:
  0.09689032 = sum of:
    0.0118387835 = product of:
      0.023677567 = sum of:
        0.023677567 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023677567 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09615103 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.024179846 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024179846 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09716552 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
    0.023677567 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023677567 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09615103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
    0.023677567 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023677567 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09615103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
    0.005833246 = weight(_text_:in in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005833246 = score(doc=949,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
    0.006274772 = product of:
      0.018824315 = sum of:
        0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824315 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
  0.23333333 = coord(7/30)
    Abstract
    Purpose This paper analyses the research in Library and Information Science (LIS) and reports on (1) the status of LIS research in 2015 and (2) on the evolution of LIS research longitudinally from 1965 to 2015. Design/methodology/approach The study employs a quantitative intellectual content analysis of articles published in 30+ scholarly LIS journals, following the design by Tuomaala et al. (2014). In the content analysis, we classify articles along eight dimensions covering topical content and methodology. Findings The topical findings indicate that the earlier strong LIS emphasis on L&I services has declined notably, while scientific and professional communication has become the most popular topic. Information storage and retrieval has given up its earlier strong position towards the end of the years analyzed. Individuals are increasingly the units of observation. End-user's and developer's viewpoints have strengthened at the cost of intermediaries' viewpoint. LIS research is methodologically increasingly scattered since survey, scientometric methods, experiment, case studies and qualitative studies have all gained in popularity. Consequently, LIS may have become more versatile in the analysis of its research objects during the years analyzed. Originality/value Among quantitative intellectual content analyses of LIS research, the study is unique in its scope: length of analysis period (50 years), width (8 dimensions covering topical content and methodology) and depth (the annual batch of 30+ scholarly journals).
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 78(2022) no.7, S.65-88
  4. Dorsch, I.; Haustein, S.: Bibliometrie (2023) 0.01 
    0.012974179 = product of:
  0.077845074 = sum of:
    0.01622127 = weight(_text_:und in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01622127 = score(doc=789,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
    0.038687754 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038687754 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09716552 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.3981634 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
    0.003527615 = weight(_text_:in in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003527615 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
    0.01622127 = weight(_text_:und in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01622127 = score(doc=789,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
    0.0031871665 = weight(_text_:s in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0031871665 = score(doc=789,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.1359047 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
  0.16666667 = coord(5/30)
    Abstract
    Die Bibliometrie ist eine sozialwissenschaftliche Disziplin, die historisch gesehen auf drei Entwicklungen fußt: die positivistisch-funktionalistische Philosophie, soziale Fakten objektiv untersuchen zu können; die Entwicklung von Zitationsindizes und -analyse, um Forschungsleistung zu messen; und die Entdeckung mathematischer Gesetzmäßigkeiten, die die Anwendung von Indikatoren in der Wissenschaftsevaluation ermöglichten.
    Pages
    S.271-280
    Source
    Grundlagen der Informationswissenschaft. Hrsg.: Rainer Kuhlen, Dirk Lewandowski, Wolfgang Semar und Christa Womser-Hacker. 7., völlig neu gefasste Ausg
  5. Reichmann, G.; Schlögl, C.: Möglichkeiten zur Steuerung der Ergebnisse einer Forschungsevaluation (2021) 0.01 
    0.008990753 = product of:
  0.067430645 = sum of:
    0.01324461 = weight(_text_:und in 5660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01324461 = score(doc=5660,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 5660, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5660)
    0.038687754 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 5660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038687754 = score(doc=5660,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09716552 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.3981634 = fieldWeight in 5660, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5660)
    0.01324461 = weight(_text_:und in 5660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01324461 = score(doc=5660,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 5660, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5660)
    0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 5660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002253667 = score(doc=5660,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 5660, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5660)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
    Abstract
    Ein Leistungsvergleich zwischen den (ehemaligen) Instituten für Informationswissenschaft der Universitäten Düsseldorf und Graz auf Basis der Forschungsleistung für einen Zeitraum von zehn Jahren zeigt, wie sehr die Ergebnisse einer Forschungsevaluation gesteuert werden können. Durch die Wahl "geeigneter" Indikatoren gelingt es - je nach Wunsch - entweder das eine oder das andere Institut an die erste Stelle zu bringen. Hält man sich dagegen an das wissenschaftliche Gebot der Unparteilichkeit, führt dies im hier gezeigten Anwendungsbeispiel zu gemischten Ergebnissen.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 72(2021) H.4, S.212-220
  6. Herb, U.; Geith, U.: Kriterien der qualitativen Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Publikationen : Befunde aus dem Projekt visOA (2020) 0.01 
    0.0063552563 = product of:
  0.04766442 = sum of:
    0.020941569 = weight(_text_:und in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020941569 = score(doc=108,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.438048 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
    0.003527615 = weight(_text_:in in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003527615 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
    0.020941569 = weight(_text_:und in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020941569 = score(doc=108,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.438048 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
    0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002253667 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
    Abstract
    Dieser Beitrag beschreibt a) die Ergebnisse einer Literaturstudie zur qualitativen Wahrnehmung wissenschaftlicher Publikationen, b) die Konstruktion eines daraus abgeleiteten Kriterienkatalogs zur Wahrnehmung der Qualität wissenschaftlicher Publikationen sowie c) der Überprüfung dieses Katalogs in qualitativen Interviews mit Wissenschaflterinnen und Wissenschaftlern aus dem Fachspektrum Chemie, Physik, Biologie, Materialwissenschaft und Engineering. Es zeigte sich, dass die Wahrnehmung von Qualität auf äußerlichen und von außen herangetragenen Faktoren, inhaltlichen / semantischen Faktoren und sprachlichen, syntaktischen sowie strukturellen Faktoren beruht.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 71(2020) H.2/3, S.77-85
  7. Tausch, A.: Zitierungen sind nicht alles : Classroom Citation, Libcitation und die Zukunft bibliometrischer und szientometrischer Leistungsvergleiche (2022) 0.01 
    0.0058438526 = product of:
  0.043828893 = sum of:
    0.018509908 = weight(_text_:und in 827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018509908 = score(doc=827,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.3871834 = fieldWeight in 827, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=827)
    0.0054005357 = weight(_text_:in in 827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054005357 = score(doc=827,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 827, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=827)
    0.018509908 = weight(_text_:und in 827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018509908 = score(doc=827,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.3871834 = fieldWeight in 827, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=827)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=827,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 827, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=827)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
    Abstract
    Der Beitrag soll zeigen, welche fortgeschrittenen bibliometrischen und szientometrischen Daten für ein bewährtes Sample von 104 österreichischen Politikwissenschaftler*innen und 51 transnationalen Verlagsunternehmen enge statistische Beziehungen zwischen Indikatoren der Präsenz von Wissenschaftler*innen und transnationalen Verlagsunternehmen in den akademischen Lehrveranstaltungen der Welt (Classroom Citation, gemessen mit Open Syllabus) und anderen, herkömmlicheren bibliometrischen und szientometrischen Indikatoren (Libcitation gemessen mit dem OCLC Worldcat, sowie der H-Index der Zitierung in den vom System Scopus erfassten Fachzeitschriften der Welt bzw. dem Book Citation Index) bestehen. Die statistischen Berechnungen zeigen, basierend auf den Faktorenanalysen, die engen statistischen Beziehungen zwischen diesen Dimensionen. Diese Ergebnisse sind insbesondere in den Tabellen 5 und 9 dieser Arbeit (Komponentenkorrelationen) ableitbar.
    Die multivariaten Rankings, die auf den mit den Eigenwerten gewichteten Factorscores beruhen, zeigen in der Tabelle 6, welche 15 österreichischen Politikwissenschaftler*innen sich auf den Weltmärkten der Wissenschaften am besten bewährten. Außerdem zeigen diese Methoden in Tabelle 10 auch, dass die im Beitrag analysierten führenden akademischen Verlage der Welt insbesondere für Wissenschaftler*innen der jüngeren Generation gute Weggefährten sein werden, um in Zeiten institutioneller und finanzieller Unsicherheit die Ergebnisse der Wissenschaft verlässlich um den Globus zu verbreiten und die akademischen Karrieren zu befördern.
    Source
    Bibliotheksdienst. 56(2022) H.2, S.94-108
  8. Positionspapier der DMV zur Verwendung bibliometrischer Daten (2020) 0.00 
    0.0031610115 = product of:
  0.023707585 = sum of:
    0.008194685 = weight(_text_:und in 5738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008194685 = score(doc=5738,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 5738, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5738)
    0.0053462577 = weight(_text_:in in 5738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053462577 = score(doc=5738,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 5738, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5738)
    0.008194685 = weight(_text_:und in 5738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008194685 = score(doc=5738,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 5738, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5738)
    0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 5738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019719584 = score(doc=5738,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 5738, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5738)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
    Abstract
    Bibliometrische Daten werden heute zunehmend in der Evaluation von Forschungsergebnissen benutzt. Diese Anwendungen reichen von der (indirekten) Verwendung bei der Peer-Evaluation von Drittmittelanträgen über die Beurteilung von Bewerbungen in Berufungskommissionen oder Anträgen für Forschungszulagen bis hin zur systematischen Erhebung von forschungsorientierten Kennzahlen von Institutionen. Mit diesem Dokument will die DMV ihren Mitgliedern eine Diskussionsgrundlage zur Verwendung bibliometrischer Daten im Zusammenhang mit der Evaluation von Personen und Institutionen im Fachgebiet Mathematik zur Verfügung stellen, insbesondere auch im Vergleich zu anderen Fächern. Am Ende des Texts befindet sich ein Glossar, in dem die wichtigsten Begriffe kurz erläutert werden.
    Source
    Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. 2019, H.3-4, S.112-117
  9. Asubiaro, T.V.; Onaolapo, S.: ¬A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef (2023) 0.00 
    0.001661036 = product of:
  0.01661036 = sum of:
    0.0073123598 = weight(_text_:in in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0073123598 = score(doc=992,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24922498 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
    0.001991979 = weight(_text_:s in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.001991979 = score(doc=992,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    This is the first study that evaluated the coverage of journals from Africa in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef. A list of active journals published in each of the 55 African countries was compiled from Ulrich's periodicals directory and African Journals Online (AJOL) website. Journal master lists for Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef were searched for the African journals. A total of 2,229 unique active African journals were identified from Ulrich (N = 2,117, 95.0%) and AJOL (N = 243, 10.9%) after removing duplicates. The volume of African journals in Web of Science and Scopus databases is 7.4% (N = 166) and 7.8% (N = 174), respectively, compared to the 45.6% (N = 1,017) covered in CrossRef. While making up only 17.% of all the African journals, South African journals had the best coverage in the two most authoritative databases, accounting for 73.5% and 62.1% of all the African journals in Web of Science and Scopus, respectively. In contrast, Nigeria published 44.5% of all the African journals. The distribution of the African journals is biased in favor of Medical, Life and Health Sciences and Humanities and the Arts in the three databases. The low representation of African journals in CrossRef, a free indexing infrastructure that could be harnessed for building an African-centric research indexing database, is concerning.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 14:09:06
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.745-758
  10. Lorentzen, D.G.: Bridging polarised Twitter discussions : the interactions of the users in the middle (2021) 0.00 
    0.0016373465 = product of:
  0.016373465 = sum of:
    0.005915991 = weight(_text_:in in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005915991 = score(doc=182,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 182, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=182)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=182,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 182, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=182)
    0.008767224 = product of:
      0.017534448 = sum of:
        0.017534448 = weight(_text_:22 in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017534448 = score(doc=182,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 182, 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=182)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of the paper is to analyse the interactions of bridging users in Twitter discussions about vaccination. Design/methodology/approach Conversational threads were collected through filtering the Twitter stream using keywords and the most active participants in the conversations. Following data collection and anonymisation of tweets and user profiles, a retweet network was created to find users bridging the main clusters. Four conversations were selected, ranging from 456 to 1,983 tweets long, and then analysed through content analysis. Findings Although different opinions met in the discussions, a consensus was rarely built. Many sub-threads involved insults and criticism, and participants seemed not interested in shifting their positions. However, examples of reasoned discussions were also found. Originality/value The study analyses conversations on Twitter, which is rarely studied. The focus on the interactions of bridging users adds to the uniqueness of the paper.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 73(2021) no.1, S.129-143
  11. Manley, S.: Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics (2022) 0.00 
    0.0016103862 = product of:
  0.016103862 = sum of:
    0.0030866629 = weight(_text_:in in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0030866629 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
    0.0027887707 = weight(_text_:s in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027887707 = score(doc=547,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.118916616 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
    0.010228428 = product of:
      0.020456856 = sum of:
        0.020456856 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020456856 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, 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=547)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    This article discusses how letters to the editor boost publishing metrics for journals and authors, and then examines letters published since 2015 in six elite journals, including the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. The initial findings identify some potentially anomalous use of letters and unusual self-citation patterns. The article proposes that Clarivate Analytics consider slightly reconfiguring the Journal Impact Factor to more fairly account for letters and that journals transparently explain their letter submission policies.
    Date
    6. 4.2022 19:22:26
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.5, S.702-707
  12. Chen, L.; Ding, J.; Larivière, V.: Measuring the citation context of national self-references : how a web journal club is used (2022) 0.00 
    0.0014995674 = product of:
  0.014995674 = sum of:
    0.0073123598 = weight(_text_:in in 545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0073123598 = score(doc=545,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24922498 = fieldWeight in 545, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=545)
    0.006274772 = product of:
      0.018824315 = sum of:
        0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824315 = score(doc=545,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 545, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=545)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=545,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 545, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=545)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    The emphasis on research evaluation has brought scrutiny to the role of self-citations in the scholarly communication process. While author self-citations have been studied at length, little is known on national-level self-references (SRs). This paper analyses the citation context of national SRs, using the full-text of 184,859 papers published in PLOS journals. It investigates the differences between national SRs and nonself-references (NSRs) in terms of their in-text mention, presence in enumerations, and location features. For all countries, national SRs exhibit a higher level of engagement than NSRs. NSRs are more often found in enumerative citances than SRs, which suggests that researchers pay more attention to domestic than foreign studies. There are more mentions of national research in the methods section, which provides evidence that methodologies developed in a nation are more likely to be used by other researchers from the same nation. Publications from the United States are cited at a higher rate in each of the sections, indicating that the country still maintains a dominant position in science. On the whole, this paper contributes to a better understanding of the role of national SRs in the scholarly communication system, and how it varies across countries and over time.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.5, S.671-686
  13. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Why are coauthored academic articles more cited : higher quality or larger audience? (2023) 0.00 
    0.0014547808 = product of:
  0.014547808 = sum of:
    0.005833246 = weight(_text_:in in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005833246 = score(doc=995,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:11:50
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.791-810
  14. 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 
    0.0014297592 = product of:
  0.0142975915 = sum of:
    0.006614278 = weight(_text_:in in 769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006614278 = score(doc=769,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 769, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=769)
    0.006274772 = product of:
      0.018824315 = sum of:
        0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824315 = score(doc=769,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 769, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=769)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=769,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 769, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=769)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    This paper investigates different uses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in national journal rankings and discusses the merits of supplementing metrics with expert assessment. Our focus is national journal rankings used as evidence to support decisions about the distribution of institutional funding or career advancement. The seven countries under comparison are China, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Poland, and Turkey-and the region of Flanders in Belgium. With the exception of Italy, top-tier journals used in national rankings include those classified at the highest level, or according to tier, or points implemented. A total of 3,565 (75.8%) out of 4,701 unique top-tier journals were identified as having a JIF, with 55.7% belonging to the first Journal Impact Factor quartile. Journal rankings in China, Flanders, Poland, and Turkey classify journals with a JIF as being top-tier, but only when they are in the first quartile of the Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile. Journal rankings that result from expert assessment in Denmark, Finland, and Norway regularly classify journals as top-tier outside the first quartile, particularly in the social sciences and humanities. We conclude that experts, when tasked with metric-informed journal rankings, take into account quality dimensions that are not covered by JIFs.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.12, S.1741-1754
  15. Leydesdorff, L.; Ivanova, I.: ¬The measurement of "interdisciplinarity" and "synergy" in scientific and extra-scientific collaborations (2021) 0.00 
    0.0013919314 = product of:
  0.013919314 = sum of:
    0.006236001 = weight(_text_:in in 208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006236001 = score(doc=208,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 208, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=208)
    0.006274772 = product of:
      0.018824315 = sum of:
        0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824315 = score(doc=208,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 208, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=208)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=208,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 208, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=208)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Problem solving often requires crossing boundaries, such as those between disciplines. When policy-makers call for "interdisciplinarity," however, they often mean "synergy." Synergy is generated when the whole offers more possibilities than the sum of its parts. An increase in the number of options above the sum of the options in subsets can be measured as redundancy; that is, the number of not-yet-realized options. The number of options available to an innovation system for realization can be as decisive for the system's survival as the historically already-realized innovations. Unlike "interdisciplinarity," "synergy" can also be generated in sectorial or geographical collaborations. The measurement of "synergy," however, requires a methodology different from the measurement of "interdisciplinarity." In this study, we discuss recent advances in the operationalization and measurement of "interdisciplinarity," and propose a methodology for measuring "synergy" based on information theory. The sharing of meanings attributed to information from different perspectives can increase redundancy. Increasing redundancy reduces the relative uncertainty, for example, in niches. The operationalization of the two concepts-"interdisciplinarity" and "synergy"-as different and partly overlapping indicators allows for distinguishing between the effects and the effectiveness of science-policy interventions in research priorities.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.4, S.387-402
  16. Zhang, L.; Gou, Z.; Fang, Z.; Sivertsen, G.; Huang, Y.: Who tweets scientific publications? : a large-scale study of tweeting audiences in all areas of research (2023) 0.00 
    0.0013919314 = product of:
  0.013919314 = sum of:
    0.006236001 = weight(_text_:in in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006236001 = score(doc=1189,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
    0.006274772 = product of:
      0.018824315 = sum of:
        0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824315 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study is to investigate the validity of tweets about scientific publications as an indicator of societal impact by measuring the degree to which the publications are tweeted beyond academia. We introduce methods that allow for using a much larger and broader data set than in previous validation studies. It covers all areas of research and includes almost 40 million tweets by 2.5 million unique tweeters mentioning almost 4 million scientific publications. We find that, although half of the tweeters are external to academia, most of the tweets are from within academia, and most of the external tweets are responses to original tweets within academia. Only half of the tweeted publications are tweeted outside of academia. We conclude that, in general, the tweeting of scientific publications is not a valid indicator of the societal impact of research. However, publications that continue being tweeted after a few days represent recent scientific achievements that catch attention in society. These publications occur more often in the health sciences and in the social sciences and humanities.
    Content
    Beitrag in: JASIST special issue on 'Who tweets scientific publications? A large-scale study of tweeting audiences in all areas of research'. Vgl.: https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24830.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.13, S.1485-1497
  17. Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020) 0.00 
    0.0013707519 = product of:
  0.013707519 = sum of:
    0.004409519 = weight(_text_:in in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004409519 = score(doc=178,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
    0.001991979 = weight(_text_:s in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.001991979 = score(doc=178,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 72(2020) no.6, S.945-962
  18. Wang, S.; Ma, Y.; Mao, J.; Bai, Y.; Liang, Z.; Li, G.: Quantifying scientific breakthroughs by a novel disruption indicator based on knowledge entities : On the rise of scrape-and-report scholarship in online reviews research (2023) 0.00 
    0.0013707519 = product of:
  0.013707519 = sum of:
    0.004409519 = weight(_text_:in in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004409519 = score(doc=882,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 882, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=882)
    0.001991979 = weight(_text_:s in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.001991979 = score(doc=882,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 882, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=882)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 882, 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=882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Compared to previous studies that generally detect scientific breakthroughs based on citation patterns, this article proposes a knowledge entity-based disruption indicator by quantifying the change of knowledge directly created and inspired by scientific breakthroughs to their evolutionary trajectories. Two groups of analytic units, including MeSH terms and their co-occurrences, are employed independently by the indicator to measure the change of knowledge. The effectiveness of the proposed indicators was evaluated against the four datasets of scientific breakthroughs derived from four recognition trials. In terms of identifying scientific breakthroughs, the proposed disruption indicator based on MeSH co-occurrences outperforms that based on MeSH terms and three earlier citation-based disruption indicators. It is also shown that in our indicator, measuring the change of knowledge inspired by the focal paper in its evolutionary trajectory is a larger contributor than measuring the change created by the focal paper. Our study not only offers empirical insights into conceptual understanding of scientific breakthroughs but also provides practical disruption indicator for scientists and science management agencies searching for valuable research.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:37:33
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.150-167
  19. Zhang, Y.; Wu, M.; Zhang, G.; Lu, J.: Stepping beyond your comfort zone : diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation (2023) 0.00 
    0.0013644554 = product of:
  0.013644554 = sum of:
    0.004929992 = weight(_text_:in in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004929992 = score(doc=994,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Predicting a researcher's knowledge trajectories beyond their current foci can leverage potential inter-/cross-/multi-disciplinary interactions to achieve exploratory innovation. In this study, we present a method of diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation. The method begins by constructing a heterogeneous bibliometric network consisting of a co-topic layer and a co-authorship layer. A novel link prediction approach with a diffusion strategy is then used to capture the interactions between social elements (e.g., collaboration) and knowledge elements (e.g., technological similarity) in the process of exploratory innovation. This diffusion strategy differentiates the interactions occurring among homogeneous and heterogeneous nodes in the heterogeneous bibliometric network and weights the strengths of these interactions. Two sets of experiments-one with a local dataset and the other with a global dataset-demonstrate that the proposed method is prior to 10 selected baselines in link prediction, recommender systems, and upstream graph representation learning. A case study recommending knowledge trajectories of information scientists with topical hierarchy and explainable mediators reveals the proposed method's reliability and potential practical uses in broad scenarios.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:07:12
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.775-790
  20. Cerda-Cosme, R.; Méndez, E.: Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19 : a first approach (2023) 0.00 
    0.001312408 = product of:
  0.01312408 = sum of:
    0.004409519 = weight(_text_:in in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004409519 = score(doc=916,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 916, 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=916)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    During the coronavirus pandemic, changes in the way science is done and shared occurred, which motivates meta-research to help understand science communication in crises and improve its effectiveness. The objective is to study how many Spanish scientific papers on COVID-19 published during 2020 share their research data. Qualitative and descriptive study applying nine attributes: (a) availability, (b) accessibility, (c) format, (d) licensing, (e) linkage, (f) funding, (g) editorial policy, (h) content, and (i) statistics. We analyzed 1,340 papers, 1,173 (87.5%) did not have research data. A total of 12.5% share their research data of which 2.1% share their data in repositories, 5% share their data through a simple request, 0.2% do not have permission to share their data, and 5.2% share their data as supplementary material. There is a small percentage that shares their research data; however, it demonstrates the researchers' poor knowledge on how to properly share their research data and their lack of knowledge on what is research data.
    Date
    21. 3.2023 19:22:02
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.4, S.402-414

Authors

Languages

  • e 59
  • d 8

Themes