Search (35 results, page 1 of 2)

0.033909243 = product of:
  0.08477311 = sum of:
    0.060355693 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060355693 = score(doc=3691,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 3691, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3691)
    0.024417413 = product of:
      0.048834827 = sum of:
        0.048834827 = weight(_text_:22 in 3691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048834827 = score(doc=3691,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3691, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3691)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

International bibliographic databases and related biblimetric indicators together provide an analytical framework and appropriate measure to cover both the 'supply side' - research capabilities and outputs - and 'demand side' - collaboration, diffusion and citation impact - related to information and communication technologies (ICT) research. Presents results of such a bibliometric study describing macro level features of this ICT knowledge base

Date

22. 5.1999 19:26:54

0.029874546 = product of:
  0.14937273 = sum of:
    0.14937273 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14937273 = score(doc=3792,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.8516034 = fieldWeight in 3792, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3792)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 28(1999) no.3, S.76-77

0.015654571 = product of:
  0.07827286 = sum of:
    0.07827286 = weight(_text_:line in 4722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07827286 = score(doc=4722,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25266227 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 4722, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4722)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

By developing a methodology for on-line citation analysis, the international characteristics of scientific journals have been analysed on the basis of correlations between the geographical distribution patterns of authors, citations and subscriptions. The study covered seven selected LIS journals. Assuming that the numbers of authors and citations in each geographical region follow the Poisson distribution, the hypothesis was tested, that the intensities are proportional to the subscriptions. In most cases the correlation between authors and citations was so positive that the international visibility and impact of the scientific journals can be defined by these two variables. As regards the distribution pattern of subscribers, authors and citations, however, the test showed very weak or no correlations. The analysis of the statistical significance of differences gave some useful data, the importance of which to marketing and publishing strategies is obvious. The paper suggests examining also the knowledge export of journals as an additional criterion for the evaluation of their impact, and the quality of research published in them. The comparison of Journal Impact Factors (JIF) is another contribution of this study, aimed to enhance the use of impact factor analysis with various time intervals. We demonstrate new and flexible ways of using the JIF for diachronous and synchronous analyses. The study brings new dimensions to the discussions of the impact, status and image of scientific journals. It focuses on the utilisation of informetric analysis to go beyond the simplistic use of the JIF and to get a deeper understanding of the "real" impact of international scientific journals and their market.

0.014937273 = product of:
  0.07468636 = sum of:
    0.07468636 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07468636 = score(doc=5064,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 5064, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5064)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The quality of online and CD-ROM databases is far from satisfactory. Errors are frequently found in listings from online searches. Spelling mistakes are the most common but there are also more misleading errors such as variations of an author's name or absence of homogenity in the content of certain field. Describes breifly a bibliometric study of large amounts of data downloaded from databases to investigate bibliographic errors and data heterogeneity. Recommends that database producers should consider either the implementation of a common format or the recommendations of the Société Française de Bibliométrie

0.012523659 = product of:
  0.06261829 = sum of:
    0.06261829 = weight(_text_:line in 4719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06261829 = score(doc=4719,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25266227 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.24783395 = fieldWeight in 4719, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4719)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

During the past decades, journal impact data obtained from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) have gained relevance in library management, research management and research evaluation. Hence, both information scientists and bibliometricians share the responsibility towards the users of the JCR to analyse the reliability and validity of its measures thoroughly, to indicate pitfalls and to suggest possible improvements. In this article, ageing patterns are examined in 'formal' use or impact of all scientific journals processed for the Science Citation Index (SCI) during 1981-1995. A new classification system of journals in terms of their ageing characteristics is introduced. This system has been applied to as many as 3,098 journals covered by the Science Citation Index. Following an earlier suggestion by Glnzel and Schoepflin, a maturing and a decline phase are distinguished. From an analysis across all subfields it has been concluded that ageing characteristics are primarily specific to the individual journal rather than to the subfield, while the distribution of journals in terms of slowly or rapidly maturing or declining types is specific to the subfield. It is shown that the cited half life (CHL), printed in the JCR, is an inappropriate measure of decline of journal impact. Following earlier work by Line and others, a more adequate parameter of decline is calculated taking into account the size of annual volumes during a range of fifteen years. For 76 per cent of SCI journals the relative difference between this new parameter and the ISI CHL exceeds 5 per cent. The current JCR journal impact factor is proven to be biased towards journals revealing a rapid maturing and decline in impact. Therefore, a longer term impact factor is proposed, as well as a normalised impact statistic, taking into account citation characteristics of the research subfield covered by a journal and the type of documents published in it. When these new measures are combined with the proposed ageing classification system, they provide a significantly improved picture of a journal's impact to that obtained from the JCR.

0.012071139 = product of:
  0.060355693 = sum of:
    0.060355693 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060355693 = score(doc=6691,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 6691, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6691)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Investigates the possibilities and limitations of online citation analysis. The Dialog online processing tools RANK, MAP and TARGET are used to perform analysis of citations to and from isolated sets of documents as well as to carry out diachrone journal analysis. Discusses the implications of this analysis on the journal impact factors of ISI journals. Suggests that by the combined application of RANK and TARGET, a hitherto overlooked possibility of the online analysis of bibliographic coupling and mapping of scientific fields has been revealed

0.012071139 = product of:
  0.060355693 = sum of:
    0.060355693 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 7170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060355693 = score(doc=7170,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 7170, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7170)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Part 1 of a 2 part article reviewing the technique of bibliometrics and one of its most widely used methods, citation analysis. Traces the history and development of bibliometrics, including its definition, scope, role in scholarly communication and applications. Treats citation analysis similarly with particular reference to bibliographic coupling and cocitation coupling

0.012071139 = product of:
  0.060355693 = sum of:
    0.060355693 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 7172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060355693 = score(doc=7172,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 7172, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7172)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Traces the origin and development of informetrics in the field of library and information science. 'Informatrics' is seen as a generic term to denote studies in which quantitative methods are applied. Discusses various applications of informetrics including citation analysis; impact factor; absolescence and ageing studies; bibliographic coupling; co-citation; and measurement of information such as retrieval performance assessment. Outlines recent developments in informetrics and calls for attention to be paid to the quality of future research in the field to ensure its reliability

0.012071139 = product of:
  0.060355693 = sum of:
    0.060355693 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060355693 = score(doc=1151,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 1151, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1151)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Variables measuring the nature and level of Internet usage by natural scientists improve the explanatory power of a traditional bibliographic model of scholarly productivity. The data used to construct these variables come from log files generated by the internal accounting modules of the UNIX operating system. The effects of Internet usage on productivity are quntifiable, and it is possible to calculate tradeoffs between Internet usage and the more traditional inputs

0.012071139 = product of:
  0.060355693 = sum of:
    0.060355693 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060355693 = score(doc=3544,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 3544, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3544)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

We report experiments that use lexical statistics, such as word frequency counts, to discover hidden connections in the medical literature. Hidden connections are those that are unlikely to be found by examination of bibliographic citations or the use of standard indexing methods and yet establish a relationship between topics that might profitably by explored by scientific research. Our experiments were conducted with the MEDLINE medical literature database and follow and extend the work of Swanson

0.010562247 = product of:
  0.05281123 = sum of:
    0.05281123 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05281123 = score(doc=5074,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 5074, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5074)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The delimination of a research field in bibliometric studies presents the problem of the diversity of subject classifications used in the sources of input and output data. Classification of documents according the thematic codes or keywords is the most accurate method, mainly used is specialized bibliographic or patent databases. Classification of journals in disciplines presents lower specifity, and some shortcomings as the change over time of both journals and disciplines and the increasing interdisciplinarity of research. Standardization of subject classifications emerges as an important point in bibliometric studies in order to allow international comparisons, although flexibility is needed to meet the needs of local studies

0.010562247 = product of:
  0.05281123 = sum of:
    0.05281123 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 7188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05281123 = score(doc=7188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 7188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7188)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Argues for the need to bring the total research output of substantial institutions and system under bibliographic control, noting that this aim has rarely been met. Discusses the Research Evaluation and Policy Project (REPP) at the Australian National University (ANU) which has etsablished a database covering all the publications of the Institute of Advanced Dtudies of the ANU, as well as examining corresponding citations. Describes the usefulness of the database in examining whether the citation record of research publications appearing in journals indexed by the ISI is a useable surrogate for the citation record within ISI journals of all models of publication. Contends that, if certain preconditions are met, the choice of citation rate is not critical

0.010562247 = product of:
  0.05281123 = sum of:
    0.05281123 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05281123 = score(doc=837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=837)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Within informetry publication and citation analyses stand out. The former are defined as quantitative studies of the content of the bibliographic fields, e.g. authors, in a defined document collection, the latter deal with the documents' literature lists and can be citations fron or to a document. Gives examples of how the RANK command in DIALOG can be used to count information units in phrase indexed fields enabling ranked lists of publications to be produced. DIALOG is best for analysing citations 'from'. A citation analysis 'to' is used for research evaluation, although it is agreed that it can only supplement, not supplant peer review. The Danish Library School's Centre for Informetric Studies researches online analysis and other other informetric questions

0.010562247 = product of:
  0.05281123 = sum of:
    0.05281123 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05281123 = score(doc=461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Presents an examination of the evloutionary aspects of the genesis and diversification of knowledge and disciplines. Identifies and explains 6 phases in the natural course of knowledge or information development: exploratory, classificatory, review, bibliographic, specialization and discipline branching; some diciplines also have an application phase. Of these, the classificatory and review phases have added importance in bringing development to the disciplines. If these phases are not properly developed, progress of the whole discipline is likely to be adversely affected. Suggests that ontogenetic studies of knowledge development in individual disciplines would be useful to understand the general and specific dimensions of knowledge building in time and space

0.008632859 = product of:
  0.043164294 = sum of:
    0.043164294 = product of:
      0.08632859 = sum of:
        0.08632859 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08632859 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:22:35

0.008546094 = product of:
  0.042730473 = sum of:
    0.042730473 = product of:
      0.085460946 = sum of:
        0.085460946 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085460946 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)

0.008546094 = product of:
  0.042730473 = sum of:
    0.042730473 = product of:
      0.085460946 = sum of:
        0.085460946 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085460946 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:29

0.008546094 = product of:
  0.042730473 = sum of:
    0.042730473 = product of:
      0.085460946 = sum of:
        0.085460946 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085460946 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:55

0.0065168724 = product of:
  0.03258436 = sum of:
    0.03258436 = product of:
      0.06516872 = sum of:
        0.06516872 = weight(_text_:searching in 1078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06516872 = score(doc=1078,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18226127 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = queryNorm
            0.3575566 = fieldWeight in 1078, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1078)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Scientific information has stopped growing exponentially as in the last 300 years. Nevertheless, the number of scientific papers published yearly remains dramatic. Well orderd databases and sophisticated search systems allow scientists to find the needle in the haystack. A growing number of factual databases as well as more reviews compress and refine information. Not searching but controlling and working up information appear to become the most important problem in the future

0.0065168724 = product of:
  0.03258436 = sum of:
    0.03258436 = product of:
      0.06516872 = sum of:
        0.06516872 = weight(_text_:searching in 3361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06516872 = score(doc=3361,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18226127 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045055166 = queryNorm
            0.3575566 = fieldWeight in 3361, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3361)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)