Search (161 results, page 2 of 9)

0.015173956 = product of:
  0.030347912 = sum of:
    0.030347912 = product of:
      0.09104373 = sum of:
        0.09104373 = weight(_text_:n in 4505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09104373 = score(doc=4505,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.47158742 = fieldWeight in 4505, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4505)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Der Artikel ist Teil einer größeren Untersuchung zu den Potentialen von Open Access Publishing zur Erhöhung der Publikations- und damit Karrierechancen von Sozialwissenschaftlerinnen. Es werden drei inhaltlich und methodisch ähnliche sozialwissenschaftliche Zeitschriften verglichen: das Open-Access-Journal "Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung" ("FQS") und die zwei Closed-Access-/Hybridjournale "Zeitschrift für qualitative Forschung" und "Sozialer Sinn". Erhoben wird (a) der jeweilige Frauenanteil unter Redaktions- und Beiratsmitgliedern dieser drei Zeitschriften (N=184 insgesamt), (b) aufwändig rekonstruiert und analysiert wird die Genderstruktur der Autorenschaften aller in den drei Zeitschriften zwischen 2000 und 2008 veröffentlichten Beiträge (Totalerhebung, N=1557 insgesamt).

0.014748422 = product of:
  0.029496845 = sum of:
    0.029496845 = product of:
      0.044245265 = sum of:
        0.019979235 = weight(_text_:j in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019979235 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.14042683 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
        0.024266029 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024266029 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15679733 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, 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=4051)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0133194905 = product of:
  0.026638981 = sum of:
    0.026638981 = product of:
      0.07991694 = sum of:
        0.07991694 = weight(_text_:j in 4206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07991694 = score(doc=4206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.5617073 = fieldWeight in 4206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4206)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.013006247 = product of:
  0.026012493 = sum of:
    0.026012493 = product of:
      0.07803748 = sum of:
        0.07803748 = weight(_text_:n in 1539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07803748 = score(doc=1539,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.40421778 = fieldWeight in 1539, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1539)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper provides a better understanding of the implications of researchers' social networks in bibliographic references. Using a set of chemistry papers and conducting interviews with their authors (n = 32), I characterize the type of relation the author has with the authors of the references contained in his/her paper (n = 3,623). I show that citation relationships do not always involve underlying personal exchanges and that unknown references are an essential component, revealing segmentations in scientific groups. The relationships implied by references are of various strengths and origins. Several inclusive social circles are then identified: co-authors, close acquaintances, colleagues, invisible colleges, peers, contactables, and strangers. I conclude that publication is a device that contributes to a relatively stable distribution among the various social circles that structure scientific sociability.

0.012133013 = product of:
  0.024266027 = sum of:
    0.024266027 = product of:
      0.07279808 = sum of:
        0.07279808 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07279808 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15679733 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, 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=1239)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

18. 3.2014 19:13:22

0.01083854 = product of:
  0.02167708 = sum of:
    0.02167708 = product of:
      0.06503124 = sum of:
        0.06503124 = weight(_text_:n in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06503124 = score(doc=4132,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.33684817 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a comprehensive research project, we investigated the predictive validity of selection decisions and reviewers' ratings at the open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP). ACP is a high-impact journal publishing papers on the Earth's atmosphere and the underlying chemical and physical processes. Scientific journals have to deal with the following question concerning the predictive validity: Are in fact the "best" scientific works selected from the manuscripts submitted? In this study we examined whether selecting the "best" manuscripts means selecting papers that after publication show top citation performance as compared to other papers in this research area. First, we appraised the citation impact of later published manuscripts based on the percentile citedness rank classes of the population distribution (scaling in a specific subfield). Second, we analyzed the association between the decisions (n = 677 accepted or rejected, but published elsewhere manuscripts) or ratings (reviewers' ratings for n = 315 manuscripts), respectively, and the citation impact classes of the manuscripts. The results confirm the predictive validity of the ACP peer review system.

0.01083854 = product of:
  0.02167708 = sum of:
    0.02167708 = product of:
      0.06503124 = sum of:
        0.06503124 = weight(_text_:n in 4370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06503124 = score(doc=4370,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.33684817 = fieldWeight in 4370, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4370)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.01083854 = product of:
  0.02167708 = sum of:
    0.02167708 = product of:
      0.06503124 = sum of:
        0.06503124 = weight(_text_:n in 1727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06503124 = score(doc=1727,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.33684817 = fieldWeight in 1727, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1727)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study examines whether there are some general trends across subject fields regarding the factors affecting the number of citations of articles, focusing especially on those factors that are not directly related to the quality or content of articles (extrinsic factors). For this purpose, from 6 selected subject fields (condensed matter physics, inorganic and nuclear chemistry, electric and electronic engineering, biochemistry and molecular biology, physiology, and gastroenterology), original articles published in the same year were sampled (n?=?230-240 for each field). Then, the citation counts received by the articles in relatively long citation windows (6 and 11 years after publication) were predicted by negative binomial multiple regression (NBMR) analysis for each field. Various article features about author collaboration, cited references, visibility, authors' achievements (measured by past publications and citedness), and publishing journals were considered as the explanatory variables of NBMR. Some generality across the fields was found with regard to the selected predicting factors and the degree of significance of these predictors. The Price index was the strongest predictor of citations, and number of references was the next. The effects of number of authors and authors' achievement measures were rather weak.

0.01083854 = product of:
  0.02167708 = sum of:
    0.02167708 = product of:
      0.06503124 = sum of:
        0.06503124 = weight(_text_:n in 1814) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06503124 = score(doc=1814,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.33684817 = fieldWeight in 1814, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1814)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using Scopus data, we construct a global map of science based on aggregated journal-journal citations from 1996-2012 (N of journals?=?20,554). This base map enables users to overlay downloads from Scopus interactively. Using a single year (e.g., 2012), results can be compared with mappings based on the Journal Citation Reports at the Web of Science (N?=?10,936). The Scopus maps are more detailed at both the local and global levels because of their greater coverage, including, for example, the arts and humanities. The base maps can be interactively overlaid with journal distributions in sets downloaded from Scopus, for example, for the purpose of portfolio analysis. Rao-Stirling diversity can be used as a measure of interdisciplinarity in the sets under study. Maps at the global and the local level, however, can be very different because of the different levels of aggregation involved. Two journals, for example, can both belong to the humanities in the global map, but participate in different specialty structures locally. The base map and interactive tools are available online (with instructions) at http://www.leydesdorff.net/scopus_ovl.

0.01083854 = product of:
  0.02167708 = sum of:
    0.02167708 = product of:
      0.06503124 = sum of:
        0.06503124 = weight(_text_:n in 2725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06503124 = score(doc=2725,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.33684817 = fieldWeight in 2725, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2725)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Previous studies have repeatedly demonstrated that the relevance of a citing document is related to the number of times with which the source document is cited. Despite the ease with which electronic documents would permit the incorporation of this information into citation-based document search and retrieval systems, the possibilities of repeated citations remain untapped. Part of this under-utilization may be due to the fact that very little is known regarding the pattern of repeated citations in scholarly literature or how this pattern may vary as a function of journal, academic discipline or self-citation. The current research addresses these unanswered questions in order to facilitate the future incorporation of repeated citation information into document search and retrieval systems. Using data mining of electronic texts, the citation characteristics of nine different journals, covering the three different academic fields (economics, computing, and medicine & biology), were characterized. It was found that the frequency (f) with which a reference is cited N or more times within a document is consistent across the sampled journals and academic fields. Self-citation causes an increase in frequency, and this effect becomes more pronounced for large N. The objectivity, automatability, and insensitivity of repeated citations to journal and discipline, present powerful opportunities for improving citation-based document search.

0.01083854 = product of:
  0.02167708 = sum of:
    0.02167708 = product of:
      0.06503124 = sum of:
        0.06503124 = weight(_text_:n in 3538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06503124 = score(doc=3538,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.33684817 = fieldWeight in 3538, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3538)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Induced by "big data," "topic modeling" has become an attractive alternative to mapping co-words in terms of co-occurrences and co-absences using network techniques. Does topic modeling provide an alternative for co-word mapping in research practices using moderately sized document collections? We return to the word/document matrix using first a single text with a strong argument ("The Leiden Manifesto") and then upscale to a sample of moderate size (n?=?687) to study the pros and cons of the two approaches in terms of the resulting possibilities for making semantic maps that can serve an argument. The results from co-word mapping (using two different routines) versus topic modeling are significantly uncorrelated. Whereas components in the co-word maps can easily be designated, the topic models provide sets of words that are very differently organized. In these samples, the topic models seem to reveal similarities other than semantic ones (e.g., linguistic ones). In other words, topic modeling does not replace co-word mapping in small and medium-sized sets; but the paper leaves open the possibility that topic modeling would work well for the semantic mapping of large sets.

0.01083854 = product of:
  0.02167708 = sum of:
    0.02167708 = product of:
      0.06503124 = sum of:
        0.06503124 = weight(_text_:n in 3792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06503124 = score(doc=3792,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.33684817 = fieldWeight in 3792, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3792)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Scientific journals publish an increasing number of articles every year. To steer readers' attention to the most important papers, journals use several techniques (e.g., lead paper). Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC), a leading international journal in chemistry, signals high-quality papers through designating them as a "very important paper" (VIP). This study aims to investigate the citation impact of Communications in AC receiving the special feature VIP, both cumulated and over time. Using propensity score matching, treatment group (VIP) and control group (non-VIP) were balanced for 14 covariates to estimate the unconfounded "average treatment effect on the treated" for the VIP designation. Out of N = 3,011 Communications published in 2007 and 2008, N = 207 received the special feature VIP. For each Communication, data were collected from AC (e.g., referees' ratings) and from the databases Chemical Abstracts (e.g., sections) and the Web of Science (e.g., citations). The estimated unconfounded average treatment effect on the treated (that is, Communications designated as a VIP) was statistically significant and amounted to 19.83 citations. In addition, the special feature VIP fostered the cumulated annual citation growth. For instance, the time until a Communication reached its maximum annual number of citations, was reduced.

0.009989617 = product of:
  0.019979235 = sum of:
    0.019979235 = product of:
      0.059937704 = sum of:
        0.059937704 = weight(_text_:j in 2349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059937704 = score(doc=2349,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.4212805 = fieldWeight in 2349, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2349)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009196806 = product of:
  0.018393612 = sum of:
    0.018393612 = product of:
      0.055180833 = sum of:
        0.055180833 = weight(_text_:n in 4964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055180833 = score(doc=4964,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 4964, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4964)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009196806 = product of:
  0.018393612 = sum of:
    0.018393612 = product of:
      0.055180833 = sum of:
        0.055180833 = weight(_text_:n in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055180833 = score(doc=824,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is a study about the relationships between authors and the main thematic categories in the papers published in the last five International ISKO Conferences, held between 2002 and 2010. The aim is to map the domain as ISKO conferences are considered the most representative forum in the field. The published papers are considered to indicate the relationships between authors and themes. The Classification Scheme for Knowledge Organization Literature (CSKOL) was used to categorize the papers. The theoretical and methodological foundations of the study can be found in the concept of domain analysis proposed by Hjørland. The analysis of the papers (n=146) led to the identification of the most productive authors, the networks representing the relationships between the authors as also the categories that constitute the primary areas of research.

0.009196806 = product of:
  0.018393612 = sum of:
    0.018393612 = product of:
      0.055180833 = sum of:
        0.055180833 = weight(_text_:n in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055180833 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.

0.009196806 = product of:
  0.018393612 = sum of:
    0.018393612 = product of:
      0.055180833 = sum of:
        0.055180833 = weight(_text_:n in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055180833 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009196806 = product of:
  0.018393612 = sum of:
    0.018393612 = product of:
      0.055180833 = sum of:
        0.055180833 = weight(_text_:n in 4228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055180833 = score(doc=4228,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19305801 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 4228, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4228)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.008324681 = product of:
  0.016649362 = sum of:
    0.016649362 = product of:
      0.049948085 = sum of:
        0.049948085 = weight(_text_:j in 1694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049948085 = score(doc=1694,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.35106707 = fieldWeight in 1694, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1694)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.008241015 = product of:
  0.01648203 = sum of:
    0.01648203 = product of:
      0.049446084 = sum of:
        0.049446084 = weight(_text_:j in 1294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049446084 = score(doc=1294,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14227505 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044775832 = queryNorm
            0.34753868 = fieldWeight in 1294, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1294)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I propose the use of h-plots for visualizing the asymmetric relationships between the citing and cited profiles of journals in a common map. With this exploratory tool, we can understand better the journal's dual roles of citing and being cited in a reference network. The h-plot is introduced and its use is validated with a set of 25 journals belonging to the statistics area. The relatedness factor is considered for describing the relations of citations from a journal "i" to a journal "j," and the citations from the journal "j" to the journal "i." More information has been extracted from the h-plot, compared with other statistical techniques for modelling and representing asymmetric data, such as multidimensional unfolding.