Search (412 results, page 21 of 21)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Száva-Kováts, E.: Indirect-collective referencing (ICR) in the elite journal literature of physics : II: a literature science study on the level of communications (2002) 0.00 
    0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.1, S.47-56
  2. Bibliometrische Analysen - ein Beitrag für ein gerechtes Notensystem in der Forschung? : Konferenz in Jülich (2004) 0.00 
    0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 2296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=2296,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2296, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2296)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    "Bibliometriker analysieren Publikationen und deren Beziehungen untereinander; ihre »Werkzeuge« sind mathematische und statistische Verfahren. Sie haben eine Reihe von Indikatoren entwickelt, die immer häufiger herangezogen werden, um wissenschaftliche Leistung zu bewerten. Einig waren sich die Teilnehmer der Jülicher Konferenz darüber, dass die bibliometrische Analyse andere etablierte Bewertungsmethoden nur ergänzen, nicht aber ersetzen kann. Zu diesen zählt beispielsweise das »peer review«, ein Gutachterverfahren: Hier entscheidet jeweils ein Gremium renommierter Fachkollegen darüber, ob ein Forschungsprojekt gefördert oder ob ein Beitrag in einer Fachzeitschrift aufgenommen werden sollte. Kritiker sind überzeugt, dass eine objektive Betrachtung nicht immer gegeben ist. Doch auch die Zitationsanalyse - eine wichtige bibliometrische Methode - ist nicht unumstritten. Wie häufig eine wissenschaftliche Arbeit zitiert wird, muss nicht unbedingt etwas über ihre Qualität aussagen: So zitiert ein Wissenschaftler die These eines Kollegen möglicherweise nur, um sie zu widerlegen. Weltweit führender Anbieter bibliometrischer Daten ist das amerikanischen Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) mit dem »Science Citation Index«, der weltweit größten Datenbank mit bibliometrisch verwertbaren Daten. Zu den bibliometrischen Indikatoren gehört auch der »Impact-Faktor«, der Auskunft darüber gibt, wie häufig die Artikel einer bestimmten Fachzeitschrift in anderen Publikationen zitiert werden. Immer wieder warnten die Tagungsteilnehmer davor, die Bedeutung dieses Faktors zu überschätzen. Ein Problem ist beispielsweise die Ver gleichbarkeit von verschiedenen Forschungsrichtungen. So haben biomedizinische Fachzeitschriften nahezu immer einen höheren Impact-Faktor als Blätter, in denen Ergebnisse aus der physikalischen Grundlagenforschung publiziert werden - ohne dass sich ein Unterschied in Qualität oder Bedeutung feststellen lässt. Der reine Vergleich des Impact-Faktors ist also nur innerhalb eines Fachgebiets möglich-alles andere hieße, Äpfel mit Birnen zu vergleichen. Die Jülicher Konferenz hat erstmals alle Beteiligten - Wissenschaftler, Forschungsmanager und Informationsfachleutezusammengebracht. Veranstaltet wurde die Tagung von der Zentralbibliothek des Forschungszentrums, einer der größten außeruniversitären Spezialbibliotheken in Deutschland. Dazu Rafael Ball, Leiter der Zentralbibliothek: »Die Forschungsförderung braucht ein Notensystem, das die Wissenschaft gerechter als bisher bewertet. Dazu kann die Informationswissenschaft mit der Durchführung bibliometrischer Analysen Hilfestellungleisten.« Fazit der Jülicher Tagung: Die bibliometrische Analyse kann einen wesentlichen, aber begrenzten Beitrag für die Evaluierung von Wissenschaft leisten. Wichtige Faktoren für den Erfolg der Bibliometrie sind eindeutige Vorgaben der Auftraggeber, Transparenz der ermittelten Daten und praxisorientierte Vorgehensweise. Bleibt als Resümee festzuhalten: Man darf die Veröffentlichungen nicht nur zählen, man muss sie lesen! - Der Proceedingsband der Tagung kann im Eigenverlag des Forschungszentrums (Kontakt: R. Relius, Forschungszentrum Jülich, Zentralbibliothek; Telefax 0 24 61/61-6103, Internet <www.fz-juelich.de/zb/verlag>) schriftlich bestellt werden."
  3. Umstätter, W.: Szientometrische Verfahren (2004) 0.00 
    0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 2920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=2920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2920, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2920)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. 5., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. 2 Bde. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, Th. Seeger u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried. Bd.1: Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis
  4. Petersen, A.; Münch, V.: STN® AnaVist(TM) holt verborgenes Wissen aus Recherche-Ergebnissen : Neue Software analysiert und visualisiert Marktaufteilung, Forschung und Patentaktivitäten (2005) 0.00 
    0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 3984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=3984,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 3984, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3984)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 56(2005) H.5/6, S.319-322
  5. Egghe, L.: Empirical and combinatorial study of country occurrences in multi-authored papers (2006) 0.00 
    0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.427-432
  6. Raan, A.F.J. van: Performance-related differences of bibliometric statistical properties of research groups : cumulative advantages and hierarchically layered networks (2006) 0.00 
    0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=220,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 220, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=220)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.14, S.1919-1935
  7. Bonitz, M.: Ranking of nations and heightened competition in Matthew core journals : two faces of the Matthew effect for countries (2002) 0.00 
    0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=818,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 818, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=818)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Footnote
    Artikel in einem Themenheft "Current theory in library and information science"
  8. Hamilton, E.C.: ¬The impact of survey data : measuring success (2007) 0.00 
    0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 71) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=71,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 71, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=71)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.2, S.190-199
  9. Barjak, F.; Li, X.; Thelwall, M.: Which factors explain the Web impact of scientists' personal homepages? (2007) 0.00 
    0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.2, S.200-211
  10. Schneider, J.W.; Borlund, P.: Matrix comparison, part 2 : measuring the resemblance between proximity measures or ordination results by use of the mantel and procrustes statistics (2007) 0.00 
    0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 582, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=582)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.11, S.1596-1609
  11. Schneider, J.W.; Borlund, P.: Matrix comparison, part 1 : motivation and important issues for measuring the resemblance between proximity measures or ordination results (2007) 0.00 
    0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=584,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 584, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=584)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.11, S.1586-1595
  12. Lawrence, S.: Online or Invisible? (2001) 0.00 
    0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 1063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=1063,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 1063, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1063)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    The volume of scientific literature typically far exceeds the ability of scientists to identify and utilize all relevant information in their research. Improvements to the accessibility of scientific literature, allowing scientists to locate more relevant research within a given time, have the potential to dramatically improve communication and progress in science. With the web, scientists now have very convenient access to an increasing amount of literature that previously required trips to the library, inter-library loan delays, or substantial effort in locating the source. Evidence shows that usage increases when access is more convenient, and maximizing the usage of the scientific record benefits all of society. Although availability varies greatly by discipline, over a million research articles are freely available on the web. Some journals and conferences provide free access online, others allow authors to post articles on the web, and others allow authors to purchase the right to post their articles on the web. In this article we investigate the impact of free online availability by analyzing citation rates. We do not discuss methods of creating free online availability, such as time-delayed release or publication/membership/conference charges. Online availability of an article may not be expected to greatly improve access and impact by itself. For example, efficient means of locating articles via web search engines or specialized search services is required, and a substantial percentage of the literature needs to be indexed by these search services before it is worthwhile for many scientists to use them. Computer science is a forerunner in web availability -- a substantial percentage of the literature is online and available through search engines such as Google (google.com), or specialized services such as ResearchIndex (researchindex.org). Even so, the greatest impact of the online availability of computer science literature is likely yet to come, because comprehensive search services and more powerful search methods have only become available recently. We analyzed 119,924 conference articles in computer science and related disciplines, obtained from DBLP (dblp.uni-trier.de). In computer science, conference articles are typically formal publications and are often more prestigious than journal articles, with acceptance rates at some conferences below 10%. Citation counts and online availability were estimated using ResearchIndex. The analysis excludes self-citations, where a citation is considered to be a self-citation if one or more of the citing and cited authors match.

Authors

Languages

  • e 385
  • d 27
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 405
  • m 6
  • el 2
  • r 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications