-
Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F.: SciMAT: A new science mapping analysis software tool (2012)
0.01
0.011047398 = product of:
0.022094795 = sum of:
0.022094795 = product of:
0.04418959 = sum of:
0.04418959 = weight(_text_:b in 373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04418959 = score(doc=373,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 373, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=373)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article presents a new open-source software tool, SciMAT, which performs science mapping analysis within a longitudinal framework. It provides different modules that help the analyst to carry out all the steps of the science mapping workflow. In addition, SciMAT presents three key features that are remarkable in respect to other science mapping software tools: (a) a powerful preprocessing module to clean the raw bibliographical data, (b) the use of bibliometric measures to study the impact of each studied element, and (c) a wizard to configure the analysis.
-
Friedländer, M.B.: Der Kanon der Informationswissenschaft (2015)
0.01
0.011047398 = product of:
0.022094795 = sum of:
0.022094795 = product of:
0.04418959 = sum of:
0.04418959 = weight(_text_:b in 2079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04418959 = score(doc=2079,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 2079, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2079)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Mathilde B. Friedländer steht für eine Studentengruppe der Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf.
-
Hirschmann, B.: Altmetrics - neue Formen der Impact-Messung auf dem Vormarsch? (2013)
0.01
0.011047398 = product of:
0.022094795 = sum of:
0.022094795 = product of:
0.04418959 = sum of:
0.04418959 = weight(_text_:b in 2187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04418959 = score(doc=2187,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 2187, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2187)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Radev, D.R.; Joseph, M.T.; Gibson, B.; Muthukrishnan, P.: ¬A bibliometric and network analysis of the field of computational linguistics (2016)
0.01
0.011047398 = product of:
0.022094795 = sum of:
0.022094795 = product of:
0.04418959 = sum of:
0.04418959 = weight(_text_:b in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04418959 = score(doc=2764,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 2764, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2764)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Fassin, Y.: ¬A new qualitative rating system for scientific publications and a fame index for academics (2018)
0.01
0.011047398 = product of:
0.022094795 = sum of:
0.022094795 = product of:
0.04418959 = sum of:
0.04418959 = weight(_text_:b in 4571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04418959 = score(doc=4571,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 4571, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4571)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- An innovative approach is proposed for a rating system for academic publications based on a categorization into ratings comparable to financial ratings such as Moody's and S&P ratings (AAA, AA, A, BA, BBB, BB, B, C). The categorization makes use of a variable percentile approach based on recently developed h-related indices. Building on this categorization, a new index is proposed for researchers, the fame-index or f2-index. This new index integrates some qualitative elements related to the influence of a researcher's articles. It better mitigates than the classic h-index.
-
Crespo, J.A.; Herranz, N.; Li, Y.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level (2014)
0.01
0.010901945 = product of:
0.02180389 = sum of:
0.02180389 = product of:
0.04360778 = sum of:
0.04360778 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04360778 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.
-
Yan, E.: Finding knowledge paths among scientific disciplines (2014)
0.01
0.010901945 = product of:
0.02180389 = sum of:
0.02180389 = product of:
0.04360778 = sum of:
0.04360778 = weight(_text_:22 in 1534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04360778 = score(doc=1534,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1534, 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=1534)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 26.10.2014 20:22:22
-
Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015)
0.01
0.010901945 = product of:
0.02180389 = sum of:
0.02180389 = product of:
0.04360778 = sum of:
0.04360778 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04360778 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, 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=2590)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23
-
Campanario, J.M.: Large increases and decreases in journal impact factors in only one year : the effect of journal self-citations (2011)
0.01
0.010792375 = product of:
0.02158475 = sum of:
0.02158475 = product of:
0.0431695 = sum of:
0.0431695 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0431695 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4187, 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=4187)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:53:00
-
Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011)
0.01
0.010792375 = product of:
0.02158475 = sum of:
0.02158475 = product of:
0.0431695 = sum of:
0.0431695 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0431695 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, 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=4188)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:02:21
-
Schlögl, C.: Internationale Sichtbarkeit der europäischen und insbesondere der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft (2013)
0.01
0.010792375 = product of:
0.02158475 = sum of:
0.02158475 = product of:
0.0431695 = sum of:
0.0431695 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0431695 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 900, 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=900)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 14:04:09
-
Vieira, E.S.; Cabral, J.A.S.; Gomes, J.A.N.F.: Definition of a model based on bibliometric indicators for assessing applicants to academic positions (2014)
0.01
0.010792375 = product of:
0.02158475 = sum of:
0.02158475 = product of:
0.0431695 = sum of:
0.0431695 = weight(_text_:22 in 1221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0431695 = score(doc=1221,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1221, 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=1221)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 18:22:21
-
Chen, C.; Ibekwe-SanJuan, F.; Hou, J.: ¬The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters : a multiple-perspective cocitation analysis (2010)
0.01
0.009469198 = product of:
0.018938396 = sum of:
0.018938396 = product of:
0.037876792 = sum of:
0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 3591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037876792 = score(doc=3591,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 3591, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3591)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis method is introduced for characterizing and interpreting the structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters. The method facilitates analytic and sense making tasks by integrating network visualization, spectral clustering, automatic cluster labeling, and text summarization. Cocitation networks are decomposed into cocitation clusters. The interpretation of these clusters is augmented by automatic cluster labeling and summarization. The method focuses on the interrelations between a cocitation cluster's members and their citers. The generic method is applied to a three-part analysis of the field of information science as defined by 12 journals published between 1996 and 2008: (a) a comparative author cocitation analysis (ACA), (b) a progressive ACA of a time series of cocitation networks, and (c) a progressive document cocitation analysis (DCA). Results show that the multiple-perspective method increases the interpretability and accountability of both ACA and DCA networks.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Opthof, T.: Scopus's source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations (2010)
0.01
0.009469198 = product of:
0.018938396 = sum of:
0.018938396 = product of:
0.037876792 = sum of:
0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 4107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037876792 = score(doc=4107,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 4107, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4107)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Impact factors (and similar measures such as the Scimago Journal Rankings) suffer from two problems: (a) citation behavior varies among fields of science and, therefore, leads to systematic differences, and (b) there are no statistics to inform us whether differences are significant. The recently introduced "source normalized impact per paper" indicator of Scopus tries to remedy the first of these two problems, but a number of normalization decisions are involved, which makes it impossible to test for significance. Using fractional counting of citations-based on the assumption that impact is proportionate to the number of references in the citing documents-citations can be contextualized at the paper level and aggregated impacts of sets can be tested for their significance. It can be shown that the weighted impact of Annals of Mathematics (0.247) is not so much lower than that of Molecular Cell (0.386) despite a five-f old difference between their impact factors (2.793 and 13.156, respectively).
-
Hammarfelt, B.: Citation analysis on the micro level : the example of Walter Benjamin's Illuminations (2011)
0.01
0.009469198 = product of:
0.018938396 = sum of:
0.018938396 = product of:
0.037876792 = sum of:
0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 4441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037876792 = score(doc=4441,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 4441, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4441)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Calster, B. Van: It takes time : a remarkable example of delayed recognition (2012)
0.01
0.009469198 = product of:
0.018938396 = sum of:
0.018938396 = product of:
0.037876792 = sum of:
0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037876792 = score(doc=507,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 507, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=507)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Bornmann, L.: Lässt sich die Qualität von Forschung messen? (2013)
0.01
0.009469198 = product of:
0.018938396 = sum of:
0.018938396 = product of:
0.037876792 = sum of:
0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037876792 = score(doc=928,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Grundsätzlich können wir bei Bewertungen in der Wissenschaft zwischen einer 'qualitative' Form, der Bewertung einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit (z. B. eines Manuskripts oder Forschungsantrags) durch kompetente Peers, und einer 'quantitative' Form, der Bewertung von wissenschaftlicher Arbeit anhand bibliometrischer Indikatoren unterscheiden. Beide Formen der Bewertung sind nicht unumstritten. Die Kritiker des Peer Review sehen vor allem zwei Schwächen des Verfahrens: (1) Verschiedene Gutachter würden kaum in der Bewertung ein und derselben wissenschaftlichen Arbeit übereinstimmen. (2) Gutachterliche Empfehlungen würden systematische Urteilsverzerrungen aufweisen. Gegen die Verwendung von Zitierhäufigkeiten als Indikator für die Qualität einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit wird seit Jahren eine Vielzahl von Bedenken geäußert. Zitierhäufigkeiten seien keine 'objektiven' Messungen von wissenschaftlicher Qualität, sondern ein kritisierbares Messkonstrukt. So wird unter anderem kritisiert, dass wissenschaftliche Qualität ein komplexes Phänomen darstelle, das nicht auf einer eindimensionalen Skala (d. h. anhand von Zitierhäufigkeiten) gemessen werden könne. Es werden empirische Ergebnisse zur Reliabilität und Fairness des Peer Review Verfahrens sowie Forschungsergebnisse zur Güte von Zitierhäufigkeiten als Indikator für wissenschaftliche Qualität vorgestellt.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Radicchi, F.; Bornmann, L.; Castellano, C.; Nooy, W. de: Field-normalized impact factors (IFs) : a comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs (2013)
0.01
0.009469198 = product of:
0.018938396 = sum of:
0.018938396 = product of:
0.037876792 = sum of:
0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037876792 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
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.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Goldstone, R.L.: Interdisciplinarity at the journal and specialty level : the changing knowledge bases of the journal cognitive science (2014)
0.01
0.009469198 = product of:
0.018938396 = sum of:
0.018938396 = product of:
0.037876792 = sum of:
0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037876792 = score(doc=1187,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Using the referencing patterns in articles in Cognitive Science over three decades, we analyze the knowledge base of this literature in terms of its changing disciplinary composition. Three periods are distinguished: (A) construction of the interdisciplinary space in the 1980s, (B) development of an interdisciplinary orientation in the 1990s, and (C) reintegration into "cognitive psychology" in the 2000s. The fluidity and fuzziness of the interdisciplinary delineations in the different visualizations can be reduced and clarified using factor analysis. We also explore newly available routines ("CorText") to analyze this development in terms of "tubes" using an alluvial map and compare the results with an animation (using "Visone"). The historical specificity of this development can be compared with the development of "artificial intelligence" into an integrated specialty during this same period. Interdisciplinarity should be defined differently at the level of journals and of specialties.
-
Milard, B.: ¬The social circles behind scientific references : relationships between citing and cited authors in chemistry publications (2014)
0.01
0.009469198 = product of:
0.018938396 = sum of:
0.018938396 = product of:
0.037876792 = sum of:
0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 1539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037876792 = score(doc=1539,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 1539, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1539)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
