Search (425 results, page 2 of 22)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Chen, C.: CiteSpace II : detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature (2006) 0.01 
    0.0133669125 = product of:
  0.026733825 = sum of:
    0.026733825 = sum of:
      0.003854669 = weight(_text_:e in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.003854669 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.048544887 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03377341 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
      0.022879155 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022879155 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11826873 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03377341 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:11:05
    Language
    e
  2. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.01 
    0.0133669125 = product of:
  0.026733825 = sum of:
    0.026733825 = sum of:
      0.003854669 = weight(_text_:e in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.003854669 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.048544887 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03377341 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.022879155 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022879155 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11826873 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03377341 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.
    Language
    e
  3. Meho, L.I.; Rogers, Y.: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers : a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science (2008) 0.01 
    0.0133669125 = product of:
  0.026733825 = sum of:
    0.026733825 = sum of:
      0.003854669 = weight(_text_:e in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.003854669 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.048544887 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03377341 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
      0.022879155 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022879155 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11826873 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03377341 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.
    Language
    e
  4. Shibata, N.; Kajikawa, Y.; Takeda, Y.; Matsushima, K.: Comparative study on methods of detecting research fronts using different types of citation (2009) 0.01 
    0.0133669125 = product of:
  0.026733825 = sum of:
    0.026733825 = sum of:
      0.003854669 = weight(_text_:e in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.003854669 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.048544887 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03377341 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 2743, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2743)
      0.022879155 = weight(_text_:22 in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022879155 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11826873 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03377341 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2743, 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=2743)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:52:50
    Language
    e
  5. Mukherjee, B.: Do open-access journals in library and information science have any scholarly impact? : a bibliometric study of selected open-access journals using Google Scholar (2009) 0.01 
    0.0133669125 = product of:
  0.026733825 = sum of:
    0.026733825 = sum of:
      0.003854669 = weight(_text_:e in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.003854669 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.048544887 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03377341 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
      0.022879155 = weight(_text_:22 in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022879155 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11826873 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03377341 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2745, 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=2745)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:54:59
    Language
    e
  6. Costas, R.; Bordons, M.; Leeuwen, T.N. van; Raan, A.F.J. van: Scaling rules in the science system : Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers (2009) 0.01 
    0.0133669125 = product of:
  0.026733825 = sum of:
    0.026733825 = sum of:
      0.003854669 = weight(_text_:e in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.003854669 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.048544887 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03377341 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
      0.022879155 = weight(_text_:22 in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022879155 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11826873 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03377341 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2759, 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=2759)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:02:48
    Language
    e
  7. Tonta, Y.; Ünal, Y.: Scatter of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in document delivery requests (2005) 0.01 
    0.0113321915 = product of:
  0.022664383 = sum of:
    0.022664383 = sum of:
      0.00436106 = weight(_text_:e in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00436106 = score(doc=3271,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.048544887 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03377341 = queryNorm
          0.08983562 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
      0.018303324 = weight(_text_:22 in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018303324 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11826873 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03377341 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this paper we investigate the scattering of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in more than 137,000 document delivery requests submitted to a national document delivery service. We first summarize the major findings of the study with regards to the performance of the service. We then identify the "core" journals from which article requests were satisfied and address the following research questions: (a) Does the distribution of (core) journals conform to the Bradford's Law of Scattering? (b) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and impact factors, journals with high impact factors being used more often than the rest? (c) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being used more often than the rest? (d) What is the median age of use (half-life) of requested articles in general? (e) Do requested articles that appear in core journals get obsolete more slowly? (f) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and journal impact factors, journals with high impact factors being obsolete more slowly? (g) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being obsolete more slowly? Based an the analysis of findings, we found that the distribution of highly and moderately used journal titles conform to Bradford's Law. The median age of use was 8 years for all requested articles. Ninety percent of the articles requested were 21 years of age or younger. Articles that appeared in 168 core journal titles seem to get obsolete slightly more slowly than those of all titles. We observed no statistically significant correlations between the frequency of journal use and ISI journal impact factors, and between the frequency of journal use and ISI- (Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA) cited half-lives for the most heavily used 168 core journal titles. There was a weak correlation between usage of journals and ISI-reported total citation counts. No statistically significant relationship was found between median age of use and journal impact factors and between median age of use and total citation counts. There was a weak negative correlation between ISI journal impact factors and cited half-lives of 168 core journals, and a weak correlation between ISI citation halflives and use half-lives of core journals. No correlation was found between cited half-lives of 168 core journals and their corresponding total citation counts as reported by ISI. Findings of the current study are discussed along with those of other studies.
    Date
    20. 3.2005 10:54:22
    Language
    e
  8. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.01 
    0.0113321915 = product of:
  0.022664383 = sum of:
    0.022664383 = sum of:
      0.00436106 = weight(_text_:e in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00436106 = score(doc=5171,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.048544887 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03377341 = queryNorm
          0.08983562 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.018303324 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018303324 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11826873 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03377341 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35
    Language
    e
  9. Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006) 0.01 
    0.009151662 = product of:
  0.018303324 = sum of:
    0.018303324 = product of:
      0.036606647 = sum of:
        0.036606647 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036606647 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11826873 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03377341 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, 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=77)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    4.12.2006 12:12:22
  10. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.01 
    0.006863746 = product of:
  0.013727492 = sum of:
    0.013727492 = product of:
      0.027454983 = sum of:
        0.027454983 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027454983 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11826873 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03377341 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    6. 4.2008 19:04:22
  11. Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008) 0.01 
    0.005719789 = product of:
  0.011439578 = sum of:
    0.011439578 = product of:
      0.022879155 = sum of:
        0.022879155 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022879155 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11826873 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03377341 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 6.2008 12:54:12
  12. Wettlauf der Wissenschaft (2004) 0.00 
    0.004575831 = product of:
  0.009151662 = sum of:
    0.009151662 = product of:
      0.018303324 = sum of:
        0.018303324 = weight(_text_:22 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018303324 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11826873 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03377341 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Online Mitteilungen. 2004, Nr.79, S.22-23 [=Mitteilungen VÖB 57(2004) H.2]
  13. Perer, A.; Shneiderman, B.; Oard, D.W.: Using rhythms of relationships to understand e-mail archives (2006) 0.00 
    0.0034692017 = product of:
  0.0069384035 = sum of:
    0.0069384035 = product of:
      0.013876807 = sum of:
        0.013876807 = weight(_text_:e in 207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013876807 = score(doc=207,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.048544887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03377341 = queryNorm
            0.28585517 = fieldWeight in 207, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=207)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Due to e-mail's ubiquitous nature, millions of users are intimate with the technology; however, most users are only familiar with managing their own e-mail, which is an inherently different task from exploring an e-mail archive. Historians and social scientists believe that e-mail archives are important artifacts for understanding the individuals and communities they represent. To understand the conversations evidenced in an archive, context is needed. In this article, we present a new way to gain this necessary context: analyzing the temporal rhythms of social relationships. We provide methods for constructing meaningful rhythms from the e-mail headers by identifying relationships and interpreting their attributes. With these visualization techniques, e-mail archive explorers can uncover insights that may have been otherwise hidden in the archive. We apply our methods to an individual's 15-year e-mail archive, which consists of about 45,000 messages and over 4,000 relationships.
    Language
    e
  14. Zhao, L.: How librarians used e-resources : an analysis of citations in CCQ (2006) 0.00 
    0.0034477208 = product of:
  0.0068954416 = sum of:
    0.0068954416 = product of:
      0.013790883 = sum of:
        0.013790883 = weight(_text_:e in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013790883 = score(doc=5766,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.048544887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03377341 = queryNorm
            0.28408518 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    How are library professionals who do research about bibliographic organization using electronic resources (e-resources) in their journal articles? Are they keeping pace with the use of e-resources outside the library world? What are the e-resources most used in their research? This article aims to address these and other questions by analyzing bibliographical references/notes in articles in Cataloging and Classification Quarterly (CCQ) for every other year from 1994 to 2004.
    Language
    e
  15. ¬The Web of knowledge : Festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (2000) 0.00 
    0.0033382413 = product of:
  0.0066764825 = sum of:
    0.0066764825 = product of:
      0.013352965 = sum of:
        0.013352965 = weight(_text_:e in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013352965 = score(doc=461,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.048544887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03377341 = queryNorm
            0.2750643 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Biographed
    Garfield, E.
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Knowledge organization 28(2001) no.1, S.45-46 (M.J. López Huertas u. E. Jiménez-Contreras); Password 2002, H.3, S.14-19 (W.G. Stock)
    Language
    e
  16. Bensman, S.J.: Garfield and the impact factors (2007) 0.00 
    0.003083735 = product of:
  0.00616747 = sum of:
    0.00616747 = product of:
      0.01233494 = sum of:
        0.01233494 = weight(_text_:e in 4680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01233494 = score(doc=4680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.048544887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03377341 = queryNorm
            0.2540935 = fieldWeight in 4680, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
  17. Brown, C.: ¬The role of electronic preprints in chemical communication : analysis of citation, usage, and acceptance in the journal literature (2003) 0.00 
    0.0028910015 = product of:
  0.005782003 = sum of:
    0.005782003 = product of:
      0.011564006 = sum of:
        0.011564006 = weight(_text_:e in 1453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011564006 = score(doc=1453,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.048544887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03377341 = queryNorm
            0.23821265 = fieldWeight in 1453, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study characterizes the usage and acceptance of electronic preprints (e-prints) in the literature of chemistry. Survey of authors of e-prints appearing in the Chemistry Preprint Server (CPS) at http://preprints. chemweb.com indicates use of the CPS as a convenient vehicle for dissemination of research findings and for receipt of feedback before submitting to a peer-reviewed journal. Reception of CPS e-prints by editors of top chemistry journals is very poor. Only 6% of editors responding allow publication of articles that have previously appeared as e-prints. Concerns focus an the lack of peer review and the uncertain permanence of e-print storage. Consequently, it was not surprising to discover that citation analysis yielded no citations to CPS e-prints in the traditional literature of chemistry. Yet data collected and posted by the CPS indicates that the e-prints are valued, read, and discussed to a notable extent within the chemistry community. Thirty-two percent of the most highly rated, viewed, and discussed e-prints eventually appear in the journal literature, indicating the validity of the work submitted to the CPS. This investigation illustrates the ambivalence with which editors and authors view the CPS, but also gives an early sense of the potential free and rapid information dissemination, coupled with open, uninhibited discussion and evaluation, has to expand, enrich, and vitalize the scholarly discourse of chemical scientists.
    Language
    e
  18. Christoffersen, M.: Identifying core documents with a multiple evidence relevance filter (2004) 0.00 
    0.002698268 = product of:
  0.005396536 = sum of:
    0.005396536 = product of:
      0.010793072 = sum of:
        0.010793072 = weight(_text_:e in 6094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010793072 = score(doc=6094,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.048544887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03377341 = queryNorm
            0.2223318 = fieldWeight in 6094, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6094)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
  19. Glänzel, W.; Moed, H.F.: Journal impact measures in bibliometric research (2002) 0.00 
    0.002698268 = product of:
  0.005396536 = sum of:
    0.005396536 = product of:
      0.010793072 = sum of:
        0.010793072 = weight(_text_:e in 2904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010793072 = score(doc=2904,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.048544887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03377341 = queryNorm
            0.2223318 = fieldWeight in 2904, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2904)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
  20. He, Y.; Hui, S.C.: Mining a web database for author cocitation analysis (2002) 0.00 
    0.002698268 = product of:
  0.005396536 = sum of:
    0.005396536 = product of:
      0.010793072 = sum of:
        0.010793072 = weight(_text_:e in 2584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010793072 = score(doc=2584,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.048544887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03377341 = queryNorm
            0.2223318 = fieldWeight in 2584, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2584)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e

Authors

Languages

  • e 417
  • d 7
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 417
  • el 4
  • m 4
  • r 2
  • s 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications