Search (314 results, page 2 of 16)

0.033829853 = product of:
  0.067659706 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Scientists and managers using citation-based indicators to help evaluate research cannot evaluate recent articles because of the time needed for citations to accrue. Reading occurs before citing, however, and so it makes sense to count readers rather than citations for recent publications. To assess this, Mendeley readers and citations were obtained for articles from 2004 to late 2014 in five broad categories (agriculture, business, decision science, pharmacy, and the social sciences) and 50 subcategories. In these areas, citation counts tended to increase with every extra year since publication, and readership counts tended to increase faster initially but then stabilize after about 5 years. The correlation between citations and readers was also higher for longer time periods, stabilizing after about 5 years. Although there were substantial differences between broad fields and smaller differences between subfields, the results confirm the value of Mendeley reader counts as early scientific impact indicators.

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

0.03341625 = product of:
  0.0668325 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=607,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Conceptualizations of disciplinarity often focus on the social aspects of disciplines; that is, disciplines are defined by the set of individuals who participate in their activities and communications. However, operationalizations of disciplinarity often demarcate the boundaries of disciplines by standard classification schemes, which may be inflexible to changes in the participation profile of that discipline. To address this limitation, a metric called venue-author-coupling (VAC) is proposed and illustrated using journals from the Journal Citation Report's (JCR) library science and information science category. As JCRs are some of the most frequently used categories in bibliometric analyses, this allows for an examination of the extent to which the journals in JCR categories can be considered as proxies for disciplines. By extending the idea of bibliographic coupling, VAC identifies similarities among journals based on the similarities of their author profiles. The employment of this method using information science and library science journals provides evidence of four distinct subfields, that is, management information systems, specialized information and library science, library science-focused, and information science-focused research. The proposed VAC method provides a novel way to examine disciplinarity from the perspective of author communities.

0.03341625 = product of:
  0.0668325 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 3683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=3683,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 3683, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3683)
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=3683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 3683, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3683)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Over the years, Twitter has become a popular platform for information dissemination and information gathering. However, the popularity of Twitter has attracted not only legitimate users but also spammers who exploit social graphs, popular keywords, and hashtags for malicious purposes. In this paper, we present a detailed analysis of the HSpam14 dataset, which contains 14 million tweets with spam and ham (i.e., nonspam) labels, to understand spamming activities on Twitter. The primary focus of this paper is to analyze various aspects of spam on Twitter based on hashtags, tweet contents, and user profiles, which are useful for both tweet-level and user-level spam detection. First, we compare the usage of hashtags in spam and ham tweets based on frequency, position, orthography, and co-occurrence. Second, for content-based analysis, we analyze the variations in word usage, metadata, and near-duplicate tweets. Third, for user-based analysis, we investigate user profile information. In our study, we validate that spammers use popular hashtags to promote their tweets. We also observe differences in the usage of words in spam and ham tweets. Spam tweets are more likely to be emphasized using exclamation points and capitalized words. Furthermore, we observe that spammers use multiple accounts to post near-duplicate tweets to promote their services and products. Unlike spammers, legitimate users are likely to provide more information such as their locations and personal descriptions in their profiles. In summary, this study presents a comprehensive analysis of hashtags, tweet contents, and user profiles in Twitter spamming.

0.03051905 = product of:
  0.1220762 = sum of:
    0.1220762 = weight(_text_:social in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1220762 = score(doc=839,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.66085404 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report an investigation into the social and citation networks of three information scientists: David Nicholas, Peter Williams and Paul Huntington. Design/methodology/approach - Similarities between citation patterns and social closeness were identified and discussed. A total of 16 individuals in the citation network were identified and investigated using citation analysis, and a matrix formed of citations made between those in the network. Social connections between the 16 in the citation network were then investigated by means of a questionnaire, the results of which were merged into a separate matrix. These matrices were converted into visual social networks, using multidimensional scaling. A new deviance measure was devised for drawing comparisons between social and citation closeness in individual cases. Findings - Nicholas, Williams and Huntington were found to have cited 527 authors in the period 2000-2003, the 16 most cited becoming the subjects of further citation and social investigation. This comparison, along with the examination of visual representations indicates a positive correlation between social closeness and citation counts. Possible explanations for this correlation are discussed, and implications considered. Despite this correlation, the information scientists were found to cite widely outside their immediate social connections. Originality/value - Social network analysis has not been often used in combination with citation analysis to explore inter-relationships in research teams.

0.029902441 = product of:
  0.119609766 = sum of:
    0.119609766 = weight(_text_:social in 3781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.119609766 = score(doc=3781,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.6475021 = fieldWeight in 3781, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3781)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Social media has become integrated into the fabric of the scholarly communication system in fundamental ways, principally through scholarly use of social media platforms and the promotion of new indicators on the basis of interactions with these platforms. Research and scholarship in this area has accelerated since the coining and subsequent advocacy for altmetrics-that is, research indicators based on social media activity. This review provides an extensive account of the state-of-the art in both scholarly use of social media and altmetrics. The review consists of 2 main parts: the first examines the use of social media in academia, reviewing the various functions these platforms have in the scholarly communication process and the factors that affect this use. The second part reviews empirical studies of altmetrics, discussing the various interpretations of altmetrics, data collection and methodological limitations, and differences according to platform. The review ends with a critical discussion of the implications of this transformation in the scholarly communication system.

0.029902441 = product of:
  0.119609766 = sum of:
    0.119609766 = weight(_text_:social in 4547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.119609766 = score(doc=4547,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.6475021 = fieldWeight in 4547, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4547)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article presents an investigation of the role of social relations in the writing of scientific articles through the study of in-text citations. Does the fact that the author of an article knows the author whose work he or she cites have an impact on the context of the citation? Because citations are commonly used as criteria for research evaluation, it is important to question their social background to better understand how it impacts textual features. We studied a collection of science articles (N?=?123) from 5 disciplines and interviewed their authors (N?=?84) to: (a) identify the social relations between citing and cited authors; and (b) measure the correlation between a set of features related to in-text citations (N?=?6,956) and the identified social relations. Our pioneering work, mixing sociological and linguistic results, shows that social relations between authors can partly explain the variations of citations in terms of frequency, position and textual context.

0.029282015 = product of:
  0.11712806 = sum of:
    0.11712806 = sum of:
      0.07319321 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07319321 = score(doc=3689,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.3495657 = fieldWeight in 3689, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3689)
      0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043934856 = score(doc=3689,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3689, 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=3689)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Context analysis is a new method for appraising a body of publications. the process consists of creating a database of attributes assigned to each paper by the reviewer and then looking for interesting relationships in the data. Assigning the attributes requires an understanding of the subject matter of the papers. Presents findings about one particular research field, Management of R&D at the Section Level. The findings support the view that this body of academic publications does not meet the needs of practitioner R&D managers. Discusses practical aspects of how to apply the method in other fields

Date

22. 5.1999 19:18:46

0.028773637 = product of:
  0.11509455 = sum of:
    0.11509455 = weight(_text_:social in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11509455 = score(doc=215,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.6230592 = fieldWeight in 215, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=215)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Social media metrics have a genuine networked nature, reflecting the networking characteristics of the social media platform from where they are derived. This networked nature has been relatively less explored in the literature on altmetrics, although new network-level approaches are starting to appear. A general conceptualization of the role of social media networks in science communication, and particularly of social media as a specific type of interface between science and society, is still missing. The aim of this paper is to provide a conceptual framework for appraising interactions between science and society in multiple directions, in what we call heterogeneous couplings. Heterogeneous couplings are conceptualized as the co-occurrence of science and non-science objects, actors, and interactions in online media environments. This conceptualization provides a common framework to study the interactions between science and non-science actors as captured via online and social media platforms. The conceptualization of heterogeneous couplings opens wider opportunities for the development of network applications and analyses of the interactions between societal and scholarly entities in social media environments, paving the way toward more advanced forms of altmetrics, social (media) studies of science, and the conceptualization and operationalization of more advanced science-society studies.

0.028484445 = product of:
  0.11393778 = sum of:
    0.11393778 = weight(_text_:social in 3073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11393778 = score(doc=3073,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.6167971 = fieldWeight in 3073, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3073)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.028191544 = product of:
  0.05638309 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.015691021 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031382043 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.028191544 = product of:
  0.05638309 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.015691021 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031382043 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.027297068 = product of:
  0.10918827 = sum of:
    0.10918827 = weight(_text_:social in 3580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10918827 = score(doc=3580,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.59108585 = fieldWeight in 3580, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, 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.

0.026915273 = product of:
  0.10766109 = sum of:
    0.10766109 = weight(_text_:social in 5107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10766109 = score(doc=5107,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.5828185 = fieldWeight in 5107, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5107)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Journal articles constitute the core documents for the diffusion of knowledge in the natural sciences. It has been argued that the same is not true for the social sciences and humanities where knowledge is more often disseminated in monographs that are not indexed in the journal-based databases used for bibliometric analysis. Previous studies have made only partial assessments of the role played by both serials and other types of literature. The importance of journal literature in the various scientific fields has therefore not been systematically characterized. The authors address this issue by providing a systematic measurement of the role played by journal literature in the building of knowledge in both the natural sciences and engineering and the social sciences and humanities. Using citation data from the CD-ROM versions of the Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) databases from 1981 to 2000 (Thomson ISI, Philadelphia, PA), the authors quantify the share of citations to both serials and other types of literature. Variations in time and between fields are also analyzed. The results show that journal literature is increasingly important in the natural and social sciences, but that its role in the humanities is stagnant and has even tended to diminish slightly in the 1990s. Journal literature accounts for less than 50% of the citations in several disciplines of the social sciences and humanities; hence, special care should be used when using bibliometric indicators that rely only on journal literature.

Object

Social Sciences Citation Index

0.026733 = product of:
  0.053466 = sum of:
    0.032553654 = weight(_text_:social in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032553654 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
    0.020912344 = product of:
      0.041824687 = sum of:
        0.041824687 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041824687 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19975184 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This study explores the tendency of authors to recite themselves and others in multiple works over time, using the insights gained to build citation theory. The set of all authors whom an author cites is defined as that author's citation identity. The study explains how to retrieve citation identities from the Institute for Scientific Information's files on Dialog and how to deal with idiosyncrasies of these files. As the author's oeuvre grows, the identity takes the form of a core-and-scatter distribution that may be divided into authors cited only once (unicitations) and authors cited at least twice (recitations). The latter group, especially those recited most frequently, are interpretable as symbols of a citer's main substantive concerns. As illustrated by the top recitees of eight information scientists, identities are intelligible, individualized, and wide-ranging. They are ego-centered without being egotistical. They are often affected by social ties between citers and citees, but the universal motivator seems to be the perceived relevance of the citees' works. Citing styles in identities differ: "scientific-paper style" authors recite heavily, adding to core; "bibliographic-essay style" authors are heavy on unicitations, adding to scatter; "literature-review style" authors do both at once. Identities distill aspects of citers' intellectual lives, such as orienting figures, interdisciplinary interests, bidisciplinary careers, and conduct in controversies. They can also be related to past schemes for classifying citations in categories such as positive-negative and perfunctory- organic; indeed, one author's frequent recitation of another, whether positive or negative, may be the readiest indicator of an organic relation between them. The shape of the core-and-scatter distribution of names in identities can be explained by the principle of least effort. Citers economize on effort by frequently reciting only a relatively small core of names in their identities. They also economize by frequent use of perfunctory citations, which require relatively little context, and infrequent use of negative citations, which require contexts more laborious to set

0.026329588 = product of:
  0.10531835 = sum of:
    0.10531835 = sum of:
      0.073936306 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.073936306 = score(doc=4959,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.35311472 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
      0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031382043 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4959, 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=4959)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study uses three bibliometric methods: direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-authorship analysis, to investigate interdisciplinary changes in library and information science (LIS) from 1978 to 2007. The results reveal that LIS researchers most frequently cite publications in their own discipline. In addition, half of all co-authors of LIS articles are affiliated with LIS-related institutes. The results confirm that the degree of interdisciplinarity within LIS has increased, particularly co-authorship. However, the study found sources of direct citations in LIS articles are widely distributed across 30 disciplines, but co-authors of LIS articles are distributed across only 25 disciplines. The degree of interdisciplinarity was found ranging from 0.61 to 0.82 with citation to references in all articles being the highest and that of co-authorship being the lowest. Percentages of contribution attributable to LIS show a decreasing tendency based on the results of direct citation and co-authorship analysis, but an increasing tendency based on those of bibliographic coupling analysis. Such differences indicate each of the three bibliometric methods has its strength and provides insights respectively for viewing various aspects of interdisciplinarity, suggesting the use of no single bibliometric method can reveal all aspects of interdisciplinarity due to its multifaceted nature.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.22-33

0.024918701 = product of:
  0.099674806 = sum of:
    0.099674806 = weight(_text_:social in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099674806 = score(doc=2946,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.5395851 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%-5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.

0.024918701 = product of:
  0.099674806 = sum of:
    0.099674806 = weight(_text_:social in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099674806 = score(doc=1621,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.5395851 = fieldWeight in 1621, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1621)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The intent of this article is to use cooperative game theory to predict the level of social impact of scholarly papers created by citation networks. Social impact of papers can be defined as the net effect of citations on a network. A publication exerts direct and indirect influence on others (e.g., by citing articles) and is itself influenced directly and indirectly (e.g., by cited articles). This network leads to an influence structure of citing and cited publications. Drawing on cooperative game theory, our research problem is to translate into mathematical equations the rules that govern the social impact of a paper in a citation network. In this article, we show that when citation relationships between academic papers function within a citation structure, the result is social impact instead of the (individual) citation impact of each paper. Mathematical equations explain the interaction between papers in such a citation structure. The equations show that the social impact of a paper is affected by the (individual) citation impact of citing publications, immediacy of citing articles, and number of both citing and cited papers. Examples are provided for several academic papers.

0.02441524 = product of:
  0.09766096 = sum of:
    0.09766096 = weight(_text_:social in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09766096 = score(doc=1825,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.52868325 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to investigate the place and role of citation analysis in selected disciplines in the social sciences, including library and information science. 5 core library and information science periodicals: Journal of documentation; Library quarterly; Journal of the American Society for Information Science; College and research libraries; and the Journal of information science, were studed to determine the percentage of articles devoted to citation analysis and develop an indictive typology to categorize the major foci of research being conducted under the rubric of citation analysis. Similar analysis was conducted for periodicals in other social sciences disciplines. Demonstrates how the rubric can be used to dertermine how citatiion analysis is applied within library and information science and other disciplines. By isolating citation from bibliometrics in general, this work is differentiated from other, previous studies. Analysis of data from a 10 year sample of transdisciplinary social sciences literature suggests that 2 application areas predominate: the validity of citation as an evaluation tool; and impact or performance studies of authors, periodicals, and institutions

0.02441524 = product of:
  0.09766096 = sum of:
    0.09766096 = weight(_text_:social in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09766096 = score(doc=928,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.52868325 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper evaluates the content of Google Scholar and seven other databases (Academic Search Elite, AgeLine, ArticleFirst, GEOBASE, POPLINE, Social Sciences Abstracts, and Social Sciences Citation Index) within the multidisciplinary subject area of later-life migration. Each database is evaluated with reference to a set of 155 core articles selected in advance-the most important studies of later-life migration published from 1990 to 2000. Of the eight databases, Google Scholar indexes the greatest number of core articles (93%) and provides the most uniform publisher and date coverage. It covers 27% more core articles than the second-ranked database (SSCI) and 2.4 times as many as the lowest-ranked database (GEOBASE). At the same time, a substantial proportion of the citations provided by Google Scholar are incomplete (32%) or presented without abstracts (33%).

Object

Social Sciences Abstracts
Social Sciences Citation Index

0.02441524 = product of:
  0.09766096 = sum of:
    0.09766096 = weight(_text_:social in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09766096 = score(doc=1953,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.52868325 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper examines the probability structure of the 2005 Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) Journal Citation Reports (JCR) by analyzing the Impact Factor distributions of their journals. The distribution of the SCI journals corresponded with a distribution generally modeled by the negative binomial distribution, whereas the SSCI distribution fit the Poisson distribution modeling random, rare events. Both Impact Factor distributions were positively skewed - the SCI much more so than the SSCI - indicating excess variance. One of the causes of this excess variance was that the journals highest in the Impact Factor in both JCRs tended to class in subject categories well funded by the National Institutes of Health. The main reason for the SCI Impact Factor distribution being more skewed than the SSCI one was that review journals defining disciplinary paradigms play a much more important role in the sciences than in the social sciences.

Object

Social Sciences Citation Index