Search (455 results, page 1 of 23)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Thelwall, M.: Interpreting social science link analysis research : a theoretical framework (2006) 0.04 
    0.035504088 = product of:
  0.08876022 = sum of:
    0.008955859 = weight(_text_:a in 4908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008955859 = score(doc=4908,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4908, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4908)
    0.07980436 = weight(_text_:68 in 4908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07980436 = score(doc=4908,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2234734 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.35710898 = fieldWeight in 4908, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4908)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Link analysis in various forms is now an established technique in many different subjects, reflecting the perceived importance of links and of the Web. A critical but very difficult issue is how to interpret the results of social science link analyses. lt is argued that the dynamic nature of the Web, its lack of quality control, and the online proliferation of copying and imitation mean that methodologies operating within a highly positivist, quantitative framework are ineffective. Conversely, the sheer variety of the Web makes application of qualitative methodologies and pure reason very problematic to large-scale studies. Methodology triangulation is consequently advocated, in combination with a warning that the Web is incapable of giving definitive answers to large-scale link analysis research questions concerning social factors underlying link creation. Finally, it is claimed that although theoretical frameworks are appropriate for guiding research, a Theory of Link Analysis is not possible.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.1, S.60-68
    Type
    a
  2. Meho, L.I.; Spurgin, K.M.: Ranking the research productivity of library and information science faculty and schools : an evaluation of data sources and research methods (2005) 0.02 
    0.024038851 = product of:
  0.06009713 = sum of:
    0.006894224 = weight(_text_:a in 4343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006894224 = score(doc=4343,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 4343, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4343)
    0.053202905 = weight(_text_:68 in 4343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053202905 = score(doc=4343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2234734 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.23807265 = fieldWeight in 4343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4343)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This study evaluates the data sources and research methods used in earlier studies to rank the research productivity of Library and Information Science (LIS) faculty and schools. In doing so, the study identifies both tools and methods that generate more accurate publication count rankings as weil as databases that should be taken into consideration when conducting comprehensive searches in the literature for research and curricular needs. With a list of 2,625 items published between 1982 and 2002 by 68 faculty members of 18 American Library Association- (ALA-) accredited LIS schools, hundreds of databases were searched. Results show that there are only 10 databases that provide significant coverage of the LIS indexed literature. Results also show that restricting the data sources to one, two, or even three databases leads to inaccurate rankings and erroneous conclusions. Because no database provides comprehensive coverage of the LIS literature, researchers must rely an a wide range of disciplinary and multidisciplinary databases for ranking and other research purposes. The study answers such questions as the following: Is the Association of Library and Information Science Education's (ALISE's) directory of members a reliable tool to identify a complete list of faculty members at LIS schools? How many and which databases are needed in a multifile search to arrive at accurate publication count rankings? What coverage will be achieved using a certain number of databases? Which research areas are well covered by which databases? What alternative methods and tools are available to supplement gaps among databases? Did coverage performance of databases change over time? What counting method should be used when determining what and how many items each LIS faculty and school has published? The authors recommend advanced analysis of research productivity to provide a more detailed assessment of research productivity of authors and programs.
    Type
    a
  3. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.02 
    0.021885622 = product of:
  0.054714054 = sum of:
    0.009749904 = weight(_text_:a in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009749904 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
    0.04496415 = product of:
      0.0899283 = sum of:
        0.0899283 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0899283 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14527014 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04148407 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
    Type
    a
  4. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.02 
    0.018334702 = product of:
  0.045836754 = sum of:
    0.0060936897 = weight(_text_:a in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060936897 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
    0.039743066 = product of:
      0.07948613 = sum of:
        0.07948613 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07948613 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14527014 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04148407 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, 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=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
    Type
    a
  5. Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005) 0.02 
    0.016414216 = product of:
  0.041035537 = sum of:
    0.007312428 = weight(_text_:a in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007312428 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
    0.03372311 = product of:
      0.06744622 = sum of:
        0.06744622 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06744622 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14527014 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04148407 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    20. 1.2007 17:02:22
    Type
    a
  6. Raan, A.F.J. van: Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators : research group indicator distributions and correlations (2006) 0.01 
    0.013120681 = product of:
  0.032801703 = sum of:
    0.008955859 = weight(_text_:a in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008955859 = score(doc=5275,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 5275, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5275)
    0.023845842 = product of:
      0.047691684 = sum of:
        0.047691684 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047691684 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14527014 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04148407 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 5275, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5275)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In this article we present an empirical approach to the study of the statistical properties of bibliometric indicators on a very relevant but not simply available aggregation level: the research group. We focus on the distribution functions of a coherent set of indicators that are used frequently in the analysis of research performance. In this sense, the coherent set of indicators acts as a measuring instrument. Better insight into the statistical properties of a measuring instrument is necessary to enable assessment of the instrument itself. The most basic distribution in bibliometric analysis is the distribution of citations over publications, and this distribution is very skewed. Nevertheless, we clearly observe the working of the central limit theorem and find that at the level of research groups the distribution functions of the main indicators, particularly the journal- normalized and the field-normalized indicators, approach normal distributions. The results of our study underline the importance of the idea of group oeuvre, that is, the role of sets of related publications as a unit of analysis.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:20:22
    Type
    a
  7. Burrell, Q.L.: Predicting future citation behavior (2003) 0.01 
    0.012048127 = product of:
  0.030120317 = sum of:
    0.010448502 = weight(_text_:a in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010448502 = score(doc=3837,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
    0.019671815 = product of:
      0.03934363 = sum of:
        0.03934363 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03934363 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14527014 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04148407 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In this article we further develop the theory for a stochastic model for the citation process in the presence of obsolescence to predict the future citation pattern of individual papers in a collection. More precisely, we investigate the conditional distribution-and its mean- of the number of citations to a paper after time t, given the number of citations it has received up to time t. In an important parametric case it is shown that the expected number of future citations is a linear function of the current number, this being interpretable as an example of a success-breeds-success phenomenon.
    Date
    29. 3.2003 19:22:48
    Type
    a
  8. Rostaing, H.; Barts, N.; Léveillé, V.: Bibliometrics: representation instrument of the multidisciplinary positioning of a scientific area : Implementation for an Advisory Scientific Committee (2007) 0.01 
    0.011750519 = product of:
  0.029376298 = sum of:
    0.006894224 = weight(_text_:a in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006894224 = score(doc=1144,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
    0.022482075 = product of:
      0.04496415 = sum of:
        0.04496415 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04496415 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14527014 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04148407 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1144, 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=1144)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    30.12.2007 11:22:39
    Type
    a
  9. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.01 
    0.011132079 = product of:
  0.027830197 = sum of:
    0.010968642 = weight(_text_:a in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010968642 = score(doc=994,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.016861554 = product of:
      0.03372311 = sum of:
        0.03372311 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03372311 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14527014 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04148407 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Citation rates are becoming increasingly important in judging the research quality of journals, institutions and departments, and individual faculty. This paper looks at the pattern of citations across different management science journals and over time. A stochastic model is proposed which views the generating mechanism of citations as a gamma mixture of Poisson processes generating overall a negative binomial distribution. This is tested empirically with a large sample of papers published in 1990 from six management science journals and found to fit well. The model is extended to include obsolescence, i.e., that the citation rate for a paper varies over its cited lifetime. This leads to the additional citations distribution which shows that future citations are a linear function of past citations with a time-dependent and decreasing slope. This is also verified empirically in a way that allows different obsolescence functions to be fitted to the data. Conclusions concerning the predictability of future citations, and future research in this area are discussed.
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
    Type
    a
  10. Camacho-Miñano, M.-del-Mar; Núñez-Nickel, M.: ¬The multilayered nature of reference selection (2009) 0.01 
    0.011132079 = product of:
  0.027830197 = sum of:
    0.010968642 = weight(_text_:a in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010968642 = score(doc=2751,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
    0.016861554 = product of:
      0.03372311 = sum of:
        0.03372311 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03372311 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14527014 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04148407 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Why authors choose some references in preference to others is a question that is still not wholly answered despite its being of interest to scientists. The relevance of references is twofold: They are a mechanism for tracing the evolution of science, and because they enhance the image of the cited authors, citations are a widely known and used indicator of scientific endeavor. Following an extensive review of the literature, we selected all papers that seek to answer the central question and demonstrate that the existing theories are not sufficient: Neither citation nor indicator theory provides a complete and convincing answer. Some perspectives in this arena remain, which are isolated from the core literature. The purpose of this article is to offer a fresh perspective on a 30-year-old problem by extending the context of the discussion. We suggest reviving the discussion about citation theories with a new perspective, that of the readers, by layers or phases, in the final choice of references, allowing for a new classification in which any paper, to date, could be included.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:05:07
    Type
    a
  11. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01 
    0.011000822 = product of:
  0.027502056 = sum of:
    0.003656214 = weight(_text_:a in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003656214 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.023845842 = product of:
      0.047691684 = sum of:
        0.047691684 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047691684 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14527014 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04148407 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
    Type
    a
  12. Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006) 0.01 
    0.010942811 = product of:
  0.027357027 = sum of:
    0.004874952 = weight(_text_:a in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004874952 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
    0.022482075 = product of:
      0.04496415 = sum of:
        0.04496415 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04496415 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14527014 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04148407 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    4.12.2006 12:12:22
    Type
    a
  13. Leydesdorff, L.; Sun, Y.: National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan : university-industry-government versus international coauthorship relations (2009) 0.01 
    0.010326966 = product of:
  0.025817413 = sum of:
    0.008955859 = weight(_text_:a in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008955859 = score(doc=2761,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
    0.016861554 = product of:
      0.03372311 = sum of:
        0.03372311 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03372311 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14527014 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04148407 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    International co-authorship relations and university-industry-government (Triple Helix) relations have hitherto been studied separately. Using Japanese publication data for the 1981-2004 period, we were able to study both kinds of relations in a single design. In the Japanese file, 1,277,030 articles with at least one Japanese address were attributed to the three sectors, and we know additionally whether these papers were coauthored internationally. Using the mutual information in three and four dimensions, respectively, we show that the Japanese Triple-Helix system has been continuously eroded at the national level. However, since the mid-1990s, international coauthorship relations have contributed to a reduction of the uncertainty at the national level. In other words, the national publication system of Japan has developed a capacity to retain surplus value generated internationally. In a final section, we compare these results with an analysis based on similar data for Canada. A relative uncoupling of national university-industry-government relations because of international collaborations is indicated in both countries.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:07:20
    Type
    a
  14. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009) 0.01 
    0.01005953 = product of:
  0.025148824 = sum of:
    0.005277291 = weight(_text_:a in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005277291 = score(doc=2734,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.019871533 = product of:
      0.039743066 = sum of:
        0.039743066 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039743066 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14527014 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04148407 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
    Type
    a
  15. Zhang, Y.; Jansen, B.J.; Spink, A.: Identification of factors predicting clickthrough in Web searching using neural network analysis (2009) 0.01 
    0.0100148395 = product of:
  0.025037099 = sum of:
    0.008175544 = weight(_text_:a in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008175544 = score(doc=2742,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
    0.016861554 = product of:
      0.03372311 = sum of:
        0.03372311 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03372311 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14527014 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04148407 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In this research, we aim to identify factors that significantly affect the clickthrough of Web searchers. Our underlying goal is determine more efficient methods to optimize the clickthrough rate. We devise a clickthrough metric for measuring customer satisfaction of search engine results using the number of links visited, number of queries a user submits, and rank of clicked links. We use a neural network to detect the significant influence of searching characteristics on future user clickthrough. Our results show that high occurrences of query reformulation, lengthy searching duration, longer query length, and the higher ranking of prior clicked links correlate positively with future clickthrough. We provide recommendations for leveraging these findings for improving the performance of search engine retrieval and result ranking, along with implications for search engine marketing.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:49:11
    Type
    a
  16. Raan, A.F.J. van: Scaling rules in the science system : influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of research groups (2008) 0.01 
    0.0100148395 = product of:
  0.025037099 = sum of:
    0.008175544 = weight(_text_:a in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008175544 = score(doc=2758,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2758, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2758)
    0.016861554 = product of:
      0.03372311 = sum of:
        0.03372311 = weight(_text_:22 in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03372311 = score(doc=2758,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14527014 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04148407 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2758, 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=2758)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    A representation of science as a citation density landscape is proposed and scaling rules with the field-specific citation density as a main topological property are investigated. The focus is on the size-dependence of several main bibliometric indicators for a large set of research groups while distinguishing between top-performance and lower-performance groups. It is demonstrated that this representation of the science system is particularly effective to understand the role and the interdependencies of the different bibliometric indicators and related topological properties of the landscape.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:03:12
    Type
    a
  17. He, Z.-L.: International collaboration does not have greater epistemic authority (2009) 0.01 
    0.0100148395 = product of:
  0.025037099 = sum of:
    0.008175544 = weight(_text_:a in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008175544 = score(doc=3122,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 3122, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3122)
    0.016861554 = product of:
      0.03372311 = sum of:
        0.03372311 = weight(_text_:22 in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03372311 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14527014 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04148407 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The consistent finding that internationally coauthored papers are more heavily cited has led to a tacit agreement among politicians and scientists that international collaboration in scientific research should be particularly promoted. However, existing studies of research collaboration suffer from a major weakness in that the Thomson Reuters Web of Science until recently did not link author names with affiliation addresses. The general approach has been to hierarchically code papers into international paper, national paper, or local paper based on the address information. This hierarchical coding scheme severely understates the level and contribution of local or national collaboration on an internationally coauthored paper. In this research, I code collaboration variables by hand checking each paper in the sample, use two measures of a paper's impact, and try several regression models. I find that both international collaboration and local collaboration are positively and significantly associated with a paper's impact, but international collaboration does not have more epistemic authority than local collaboration. This result suggests that previous findings based on hierarchical coding might be misleading.
    Date
    26. 9.2009 11:22:05
    Type
    a
  18. Asonuma, A.; Fang, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Reflections on the age distribution of Japanese scientists (2006) 0.01 
    0.009669594 = product of:
  0.024173982 = sum of:
    0.007312428 = weight(_text_:a in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007312428 = score(doc=5270,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
    0.016861554 = product of:
      0.03372311 = sum of:
        0.03372311 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03372311 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14527014 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04148407 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The age distribution of a country's scientists is an important element in the study of its research capacity. In this article we investigate the age distribution of Japanese scientists in order to find out whether major events such as World War II had an appreciable effect on its features. Data have been obtained from population censuses taken in Japan from 1970 to 1995. A comparison with the situation in China and the United States has been made. We find that the group of scientific researchers outside academia is dominated by the young: those younger than age 35. The personnel group in higher education, on the other hand, is dominated by the baby boomers: those who were born after World War II. Contrary to the Chinese situation we could not find any influence of major nondemographic events. The only influence we found was the increase in enrollment of university students after World War II caused by the reform of the Japanese university system. Female participation in the scientific and university systems in Japan, though still low, is increasing.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:26:24
    Type
    a
  19. Chen, C.: CiteSpace II : detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature (2006) 0.01 
    0.009662616 = product of:
  0.02415654 = sum of:
    0.010105243 = weight(_text_:a in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010105243 = score(doc=5272,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
    0.014051297 = product of:
      0.028102593 = sum of:
        0.028102593 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028102593 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14527014 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04148407 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article describes the latest development of a generic approach to detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. The work makes substantial theoretical and methodological contributions to progressive knowledge domain visualization. A specialty is conceptualized and visualized as a time-variant duality between two fundamental concepts in information science: research fronts and intellectual bases. A research front is defined as an emergent and transient grouping of concepts and underlying research issues. The intellectual base of a research front is its citation and co-citation footprint in scientific literature - an evolving network of scientific publications cited by research-front concepts. Kleinberg's (2002) burst-detection algorithm is adapted to identify emergent research-front concepts. Freeman's (1979) betweenness centrality metric is used to highlight potential pivotal points of paradigm shift over time. Two complementary visualization views are designed and implemented: cluster views and time-zone views. The contributions of the approach are that (a) the nature of an intellectual base is algorithmically and temporally identified by emergent research-front terms, (b) the value of a co-citation cluster is explicitly interpreted in terms of research-front concepts, and (c) visually prominent and algorithmically detected pivotal points substantially reduce the complexity of a visualized network. The modeling and visualization process is implemented in CiteSpace II, a Java application, and applied to the analysis of two research fields: mass extinction (1981-2004) and terrorism (1990-2003). Prominent trends and pivotal points in visualized networks were verified in collaboration with domain experts, who are the authors of pivotal-point articles. Practical implications of the work are discussed. A number of challenges and opportunities for future studies are identified.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:11:05
    Type
    a
  20. Haycock, L.A.: Citation analysis of education dissertations for collection development (2004) 0.01 
    0.009277722 = product of:
  0.023194304 = sum of:
    0.006332749 = weight(_text_:a in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006332749 = score(doc=135,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04783308 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04148407 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
    0.016861554 = product of:
      0.03372311 = sum of:
        0.03372311 = weight(_text_:22 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03372311 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14527014 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04148407 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 135, 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=135)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The reference lists of forty-three education dissertations on curriculum and instruction completed at the University of Minnesota during the calendar years 2000-2002 were analyzed to inform collection development. As one measure of use of the academic library collection, the citation analysis yielded data to guide journal selection, retention, and cancellation decisions. The project aimed to ensure that the most frequently cited journals were retained on subscription. The serial monograph ratio for citation also was evaluated in comparison with other studies and explored in the context of funding ratios. Results of citation studies can provide a basis for liaison conversations with faculty in addition to guiding selection decisions. This research project can serve as a model for similar projects in other libraries that look at literature in education as well as other fields.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 415
  • d 40
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 450
  • el 4
  • m 2
  • r 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications