Search (89 results, page 2 of 5)

0.011709481 = product of:
  0.023418961 = sum of:
    0.023418961 = product of:
      0.046837922 = sum of:
        0.046837922 = weight(_text_:r in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046837922 = score(doc=4920,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.3103367 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.011709481 = product of:
  0.023418961 = sum of:
    0.023418961 = product of:
      0.046837922 = sum of:
        0.046837922 = weight(_text_:r in 1348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046837922 = score(doc=1348,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.3103367 = fieldWeight in 1348, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1348)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.011709481 = product of:
  0.023418961 = sum of:
    0.023418961 = product of:
      0.046837922 = sum of:
        0.046837922 = weight(_text_:r in 1512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046837922 = score(doc=1512,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.3103367 = fieldWeight in 1512, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1512)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Contributions of DRTC to informetric studies and research are discussed. A report on recent work - a quantitative country-wise analysis of software literature based on the data from two bibliographic databases i.e. COMPENDEX and INSPEC is presented. The number of countries involved in R & D activities in software in the most productive group is increasing. The research contribution on software is decreasing in developed countries as compared to that in developing and less developed countries. India 's contribution is only 1.1% and it has remained constant over the period of 12 years 1989-2001. The number of countries involved in R&D activities in software has been increasing in the 1990s. It is also noted that higher the budget for higher education, higher the number of publications; and that higher the number of publications, higher the export as well as the domestic consumption of software.

0.011709481 = product of:
  0.023418961 = sum of:
    0.023418961 = product of:
      0.046837922 = sum of:
        0.046837922 = weight(_text_:r in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046837922 = score(doc=2638,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.3103367 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Hirsch-type indices are studied with special attention to the AR**2-index introduced by Jin. The article consists of two parts: a theoretical part and a practical illustration. In the theoretical part, we recall the definition of the AR**2-index and show that an alternative definition, the so-called AR**2,1, does not have the properties expected for this type of index. A practical example shows the existence of some of these mathematical properties and illustrates the difference between different h-type indices. Clearly the h-index itself is the most robust of all. It is shown that excluding so-called non-WoS source articles may have a significant influence on the R-and, especially, the g-index.

0.011039805 = product of:
  0.02207961 = sum of:
    0.02207961 = product of:
      0.04415922 = sum of:
        0.04415922 = weight(_text_:r in 4385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04415922 = score(doc=4385,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 4385, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4385)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.011039805 = product of:
  0.02207961 = sum of:
    0.02207961 = product of:
      0.04415922 = sum of:
        0.04415922 = weight(_text_:r in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04415922 = score(doc=6759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.011039805 = product of:
  0.02207961 = sum of:
    0.02207961 = product of:
      0.04415922 = sum of:
        0.04415922 = weight(_text_:r in 1686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04415922 = score(doc=1686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 1686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.011039805 = product of:
  0.02207961 = sum of:
    0.02207961 = product of:
      0.04415922 = sum of:
        0.04415922 = weight(_text_:r in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04415922 = score(doc=2351,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.011039805 = product of:
  0.02207961 = sum of:
    0.02207961 = product of:
      0.04415922 = sum of:
        0.04415922 = weight(_text_:r in 2630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04415922 = score(doc=2630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 2630, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.011039805 = product of:
  0.02207961 = sum of:
    0.02207961 = product of:
      0.04415922 = sum of:
        0.04415922 = weight(_text_:r in 3795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04415922 = score(doc=3795,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 3795, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3795)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010919999 = product of:
  0.021839999 = sum of:
    0.021839999 = product of:
      0.043679997 = sum of:
        0.043679997 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043679997 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15966053 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.

Date

22. 3.2009 12:43:51

0.010810248 = product of:
  0.021620495 = sum of:
    0.021620495 = product of:
      0.04324099 = sum of:
        0.04324099 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04324099 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966053 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3837, 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=3837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

29. 3.2003 19:22:48

0.009757902 = product of:
  0.019515803 = sum of:
    0.019515803 = product of:
      0.039031606 = sum of:
        0.039031606 = weight(_text_:r in 2709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039031606 = score(doc=2709,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.25861394 = fieldWeight in 2709, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2709)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We use a technique recently developed by V. Blondel, J.-L. Guillaume, R. Lambiotte, and E. Lefebvre (2008) to detect scientific specialties from author cocitation networks. This algorithm has distinct advantages over most previous methods used to obtain cocitation clusters since it avoids the use of similarity measures, relies entirely on the topology of the weighted network, and can be applied to relatively large networks. Most importantly, it requires no subjective interpretation of the cocitation data or of the communities found. Using two examples, we show that the resulting specialties are the smallest coherent groups of researchers (within a hierarchy of cluster sizes) and can thus be identified unambiguously. Furthermore, we confirm that these communities are indeed representative of what we know about the structure of a given scientific discipline and that as specialties, they can be accurately characterized by a few keywords (from the publication titles). We argue that this robust and efficient algorithm is particularly well-suited to cocitation networks and that the results generated can be of great use to researchers studying various facets of the structure and evolution of science.

0.009757902 = product of:
  0.019515803 = sum of:
    0.019515803 = product of:
      0.039031606 = sum of:
        0.039031606 = weight(_text_:r in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039031606 = score(doc=2861,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.25861394 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this study, we investigate whether there is a need for the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures (SBMs). Results from our recent study (L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, & H.-D. Daniel, 2008) have indicated that there are two types of indices: One type of indices (e.g., h index) describes the most productive core of a scientist's output and informs about the number of papers in the core. The other type of indices (e.g., a index) depicts the impact of the papers in the core. In evaluative bibliometric studies, the two dimensions quantity and quality of output are usually assessed using the SBMs number of publications (for the quantity dimension) and total citation counts (for the impact dimension). We additionally included the SBMs into the factor analysis. The results of the newly calculated analysis indicate that there is a high intercorrelation between number of publications and the indices that load substantially on the factor Quantity of the Productive Core as well as between total citation counts and the indices that load substantially on the factor Impact of the Productive Core. The high-loading indices and SBMs within one performance dimension could be called redundant in empirical application, as high intercorrelations between different indicators are a sign for measuring something similar (or the same). Based on our findings, we propose the use of any pair of indicators (one relating to the number of papers in a researcher's productive core and one relating to the impact of these core papers) as a meaningful approach for comparing scientists.

0.009757902 = product of:
  0.019515803 = sum of:
    0.019515803 = product of:
      0.039031606 = sum of:
        0.039031606 = weight(_text_:r in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039031606 = score(doc=4217,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.25861394 = fieldWeight in 4217, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4217)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper studies mathematical properties of h-index sequences as developed by Liang [Liang, L. (2006). h-Index sequence and h-index matrix: Constructions and applications. Scientometrics, 69(1), 153-159]. For practical reasons, Liming studies such sequences where the time goes backwards while it is more logical to use the time going forward (real career periods). Both type of h-index sequences are studied here and their interrelations are revealed. We show cases where these sequences are convex, linear and concave. We also show that, when one of the sequences is convex then the other one is concave, showing that the reverse-time sequence, in general, cannot be used to derive similar properties of the (difficult to obtain) forward time sequence. We show that both sequences are the same if and only if the author produces the same number of papers per year. If the author produces an increasing number of papers per year, then Liang's h-sequences are above the "normal" ones. All these results are also valid for g- and R-sequences. The results are confirmed by the h-, g- and R-sequences (forward and reverse time) of the author.

0.00965983 = product of:
  0.01931966 = sum of:
    0.01931966 = product of:
      0.03863932 = sum of:
        0.03863932 = weight(_text_:r in 5485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03863932 = score(doc=5485,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.25601473 = fieldWeight in 5485, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5485)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Informationskompetenz - Basiskompetenz in der Informationsgesellschaft: Proceedings des 7. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2000), Hrsg.: G. Knorz u. R. Kuhlen

0.00965983 = product of:
  0.01931966 = sum of:
    0.01931966 = product of:
      0.03863932 = sum of:
        0.03863932 = weight(_text_:r in 4398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03863932 = score(doc=4398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.25601473 = fieldWeight in 4398, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4398)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.00965983 = product of:
  0.01931966 = sum of:
    0.01931966 = product of:
      0.03863932 = sum of:
        0.03863932 = weight(_text_:r in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03863932 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.25601473 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.00965983 = product of:
  0.01931966 = sum of:
    0.01931966 = product of:
      0.03863932 = sum of:
        0.03863932 = weight(_text_:r in 635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03863932 = score(doc=635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.25601473 = fieldWeight in 635, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009265927 = product of:
  0.018531853 = sum of:
    0.018531853 = product of:
      0.037063707 = sum of:
        0.037063707 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037063707 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966053 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, 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=4460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6.11.2005 19:02:22