-
Leydesdorff, L.; Sun, Y.: National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan : university-industry-government versus international coauthorship relations (2009)
0.01
0.009144541 = product of:
0.018289082 = sum of:
0.018289082 = product of:
0.036578164 = sum of:
0.036578164 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036578164 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15756895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044996176 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2761, 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=2761)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:07:20
-
He, Z.-L.: International collaboration does not have greater epistemic authority (2009)
0.01
0.009144541 = product of:
0.018289082 = sum of:
0.018289082 = product of:
0.036578164 = sum of:
0.036578164 = weight(_text_:22 in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036578164 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15756895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044996176 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3122, 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=3122)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 26. 9.2009 11:22:05
-
Chen, C.: CiteSpace II : detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature (2006)
0.01
0.007620451 = product of:
0.015240902 = sum of:
0.015240902 = product of:
0.030481804 = sum of:
0.030481804 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030481804 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15756895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044996176 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 16:11:05
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.01
0.007620451 = product of:
0.015240902 = sum of:
0.015240902 = product of:
0.030481804 = sum of:
0.030481804 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030481804 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15756895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044996176 = 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)
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.
-
Ball, R.: Wissenschaftsindikatoren im Zeitalter digitaler Wissenschaft (2007)
0.01
0.007620451 = product of:
0.015240902 = sum of:
0.015240902 = product of:
0.030481804 = sum of:
0.030481804 = weight(_text_:22 in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030481804 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15756895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044996176 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 875, 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=875)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 23.12.2007 19:22:21
-
Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008)
0.01
0.007620451 = product of:
0.015240902 = sum of:
0.015240902 = product of:
0.030481804 = sum of:
0.030481804 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030481804 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15756895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044996176 = 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
-
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
0.007620451 = product of:
0.015240902 = sum of:
0.015240902 = product of:
0.030481804 = sum of:
0.030481804 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030481804 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15756895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044996176 = 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)
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.
-
Shibata, N.; Kajikawa, Y.; Takeda, Y.; Matsushima, K.: Comparative study on methods of detecting research fronts using different types of citation (2009)
0.01
0.007620451 = product of:
0.015240902 = sum of:
0.015240902 = product of:
0.030481804 = sum of:
0.030481804 = weight(_text_:22 in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030481804 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15756895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044996176 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 17:52:50
-
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
0.007620451 = product of:
0.015240902 = sum of:
0.015240902 = product of:
0.030481804 = sum of:
0.030481804 = weight(_text_:22 in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030481804 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15756895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044996176 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 17:54:59
-
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
0.007620451 = product of:
0.015240902 = sum of:
0.015240902 = product of:
0.030481804 = sum of:
0.030481804 = weight(_text_:22 in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030481804 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15756895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044996176 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:02:48
-
White, H.D.; Wellman, B.; Nazer, N.: Does Citation Reflect Social Structure? : Longitudinal Evidence From the "Globenet" Interdisciplinary Research Group (2004)
0.01
0.007484437 = product of:
0.014968874 = sum of:
0.014968874 = product of:
0.029937748 = sum of:
0.029937748 = weight(_text_:1993 in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029937748 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17458819 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8800673 = idf(docFreq=2481, maxDocs=44218)
0.044996176 = queryNorm
0.17147636 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8800673 = idf(docFreq=2481, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Many authors have posited a social component in citation, the consensus being that the citers and citees often have interpersonal as well as intellectual ties. Evidence for this belief has been rather meager, however, in part because social networks researchers have lacked bibliometric data (e.g., pairwise citation counts from online databases), and citation analysts have lacked sociometric data (e.g., pairwise measures of acquaintanceship). In 1997 Nazer extensively measured personal relationships and communication behaviors in what we call "Globenet," an international group of 16 researchers from seven disciplines that was established in 1993 to study human development. Since Globenet's membership is known, it was possible during 2002 to obtain citation records for all members in databases of the Institute for Scientific Information. This permitted examination of how members cited each other (intercited) in journal articles over the past three decades and in a 1999 book to which they all contributed. It was also possible to explore links between the intercitation data and the social and communication data. Using network-analytic techniques, we look at the growth of intercitation over time, the extent to which it follows disciplinary or interdisciplinary lines, whether it covaries with degrees of acquaintanceship, whether it reflects Globenet's organizational structure, whether it is associated with particular in-group communication patterns, and whether it is related to the cocitation of Globenet members. Results show cocitation to be a powerful predictor of intercitation in the journal articles, while being an editor or co-author is an important predictor in the book. Intellectual ties based an shared content did better as predictors than content-neutral social ties like friendship. However, interciters in Globenet communicated more than did noninterciters.
-
Haridasan, S.; Kulshrestha, V.K.: Citation analysis of scholarly communication in the journal Knowledge Organization (2007)
0.01
0.007484437 = product of:
0.014968874 = sum of:
0.014968874 = product of:
0.029937748 = sum of:
0.029937748 = weight(_text_:1993 in 863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029937748 = score(doc=863,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17458819 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8800673 = idf(docFreq=2481, maxDocs=44218)
0.044996176 = queryNorm
0.17147636 = fieldWeight in 863, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8800673 = idf(docFreq=2481, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=863)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - Citation analysis is one of the popular methods employed for identification of core documents and complex relationship between citing and cited documents for a particular scholarly community in a geographical proximity. The present citation study is to understand the information needs, use pattern and use behaviour of library and information science researchers particularly engaged in the field of knowledge organization. Design/methodology/approach - The data relating to all the references appended to the articles during the period under study were collected and tabulated. Findings - Citation analysis of the journal for the period under study reveals that the average number of citations is around 21 per article. The major source of information is books and documents published during the later half of the century (1982-91). Authors from the USA, UK and Germany are the major contributors to the journal. India is ranked seventh in terms of contributions. Research limitations/implications - The study undertaken is limited to nine years, i.e. 1993-2001. The model citation index of the journal is analyzed using the first seven core authors. Practical implications - Ranking of periodicals helps to identify the core periodicals cited in the journal Knowledge Organization. Ranking of authors is done to know the eminent personalities in the subject, whose work is used by the authors to refine their ideas on the subject or topic. Originality/value - Model Citation Index for the first seven most cited authors was worked out and it reveals the historical relationship of cited and citing documents. This model citation index can be used to identify, the most cited authors as researchers currently working on special problems, to determine whether a paper has been cited, whether there has been a review of a subject, whether a concept has been applied, a theory confirmed or a method improved.
-
Wettlauf der Wissenschaft (2004)
0.01
0.0060963607 = product of:
0.0121927215 = sum of:
0.0121927215 = product of:
0.024385443 = sum of:
0.024385443 = weight(_text_:22 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024385443 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15756895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044996176 = 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]
-
Tonta, Y.; Ünal, Y.: Scatter of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in document delivery requests (2005)
0.01
0.0060963607 = product of:
0.0121927215 = sum of:
0.0121927215 = product of:
0.024385443 = sum of:
0.024385443 = weight(_text_:22 in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024385443 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15756895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044996176 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 3.2005 10:54:22
-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.01
0.0060963607 = product of:
0.0121927215 = sum of:
0.0121927215 = product of:
0.024385443 = sum of:
0.024385443 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024385443 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15756895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044996176 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 9. 7.2006 10:22:35
