Search (599 results, page 2 of 30)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Albarrán, P.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: References made and citations received by scientific articles (2011) 0.01 
    0.013719298 = product of:
  0.027438596 = sum of:
    0.009518234 = weight(_text_:a in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009518234 = score(doc=4185,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4185, 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=4185)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4185, 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=4185)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article studies massive evidence about references made and citations received after a 5-year citation window by 3.7 million articles published in 1998 to 2002 in 22 scientific fields. We find that the distributions of references made and citations received share a number of basic features across sciences. Reference distributions are rather skewed to the right while citation distributions are even more highly skewed: The mean is about 20 percentage points to the right of the median, and articles with a remarkable or an outstanding number of citations represent about 9% of the total. Moreover, the existence of a power law representing the upper tail of citation distributions cannot be rejected in 17 fields whose articles represent 74.7% of the total. Contrary to the evidence in other contexts, the value of the scale parameter is above 3.5 in 13 of the 17 cases. Finally, power laws are typically small, but capture a considerable proportion of the total citations received.
    Type
    a
  2. Hicks, D.; Wang, J.: Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists (2011) 0.01 
    0.013719298 = product of:
  0.027438596 = sum of:
    0.009518234 = weight(_text_:a in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009518234 = score(doc=4192,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4192, 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=4192)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4192, 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=4192)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This is a study of coverage and overlap in second-generation social sciences and humanities journal lists, with attention paid to curation and the judgment of scholarliness. We identify four factors underpinning coverage shortfalls: journal language, country, publisher size, and age. Analyzing these factors turns our attention to the process of assessing a journal as scholarly, which is a necessary foundation for every list of scholarly journals. Although scholarliness should be a quality inherent in the journal, coverage falls short because groups assessing scholarliness have different perspectives on the social sciences and humanities literature. That the four factors shape perspectives on the literature points to a deeper problem of fragmentation within the scholarly community. We propose reducing this fragmentation as the best method to reduce coverage shortfalls.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:21:28
    Type
    a
  3. D'Angelo, C.A.; Giuffrida, C.; Abramo, G.: ¬A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments (2011) 0.01 
    0.0133046415 = product of:
  0.026609283 = sum of:
    0.00868892 = weight(_text_:a in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00868892 = score(doc=4190,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    National exercises for the evaluation of research activity by universities are becoming regular practice in ever more countries. These exercises have mainly been conducted through the application of peer-review methods. Bibliometrics has not been able to offer a valid large-scale alternative because of almost overwhelming difficulties in identifying the true author of each publication. We will address this problem by presenting a heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometric datasets for large-scale research assessments. The application proposed concerns the Italian university system, comprising 80 universities and a research staff of over 60,000 scientists. The key advantage of the proposed approach is the ease of implementation. The algorithms are of practical application and have considerably better scalability and expandability properties than state-of-the-art unsupervised approaches. Moreover, the performance in terms of precision and recall, which can be further improved, seems thoroughly adequate for the typical needs of large-scale bibliometric research assessments.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:06:52
    Type
    a
  4. Kronegger, L.; Mali, F.; Ferligoj, A.; Doreian, P.: Classifying scientific disciplines in Slovenia : a study of the evolution of collaboration structures (2015) 0.01 
    0.0133046415 = product of:
  0.026609283 = sum of:
    0.00868892 = weight(_text_:a in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00868892 = score(doc=1639,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 1639, 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=1639)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=1639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1639, 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=1639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    We explore classifying scientific disciplines including their temporal features by focusing on their collaboration structures over time. Bibliometric data for Slovenian researchers registered at the Slovenian Research Agency were used. These data were obtained from the Slovenian National Current Research Information System. We applied a recently developed hierarchical clustering procedure for symbolic data to the coauthorship structure of scientific disciplines. To track temporal changes, we divided data for the period 1986-2010 into five 5-year time periods. The clusters of disciplines for the Slovene science system revealed 5 clusters of scientific disciplines that, in large measure, correspond with the official national classification of sciences. However, there were also some significant differences pointing to the need for a dynamic classification system of sciences to better characterize them. Implications stemming from these results, especially with regard to classifying scientific disciplines, understanding the collaborative structure of science, and research and development policies, are discussed.
    Date
    21. 1.2015 14:55:22
    Type
    a
  5. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.01 
    0.0133046415 = product of:
  0.026609283 = sum of:
    0.00868892 = weight(_text_:a in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00868892 = score(doc=4681,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.
    Date
    8. 1.2019 18:22:45
    Type
    a
  6. Schubert, T.; Michels, C.: Placing articles in the large publisher nations : is there a "free lunch" in terms of higher impact? (2013) 0.01 
    0.012836715 = product of:
  0.02567343 = sum of:
    0.010739793 = weight(_text_:a in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010739793 = score(doc=669,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 669, 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=669)
    0.014933636 = product of:
      0.029867273 = sum of:
        0.029867273 = weight(_text_:22 in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029867273 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 669, 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=669)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper deals with the role of a journal's publisher country in determining the expected citation rates of the articles published in it. We analyze whether a paper has a higher citation rate when it is published in one of the large publisher nations, the U.S., U.K., or the Netherlands, compared to a hypothetical situation when the same paper is published in journals of different origin. This would constitute a "free lunch," which could be explained by a Matthew effect visible on the country-level, similar to the well-documented Matthew effect on the author-level. We first use a simulation model that highlights increasing citation returns to quality as the central key condition on which such a Matthew effect may emerge. Then we use an international bibliometric panel data set of forty-nine countries for the years 2000-2010 and show that such a "free lunch" implied by this Matthew effect can be observed for top journals from the U.S. and depending on the specification also from the U.K. and the Netherlands, while there is no effect for lower-ranked American journals and negative effects for lower-ranked British journals as well as those coming from the Netherlands.
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:45:49
    Type
    a
  7. Schlögl, C.: Internationale Sichtbarkeit der europäischen und insbesondere der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft (2013) 0.01 
    0.0127202645 = product of:
  0.025440529 = sum of:
    0.004533437 = weight(_text_:a in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004533437 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
    0.020907091 = product of:
      0.041814182 = sum of:
        0.041814182 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041814182 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = 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(2/4)
    Date
    22. 3.2013 14:04:09
    Type
    a
  8. Ajiferuke, I.; Lu, K.; Wolfram, D.: ¬A comparison of citer and citation-based measure outcomes for multiple disciplines (2010) 0.01 
    0.012325386 = product of:
  0.024650771 = sum of:
    0.0067304084 = weight(_text_:a in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067304084 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Author research impact was examined based on citer analysis (the number of citers as opposed to the number of citations) for 90 highly cited authors grouped into three broad subject areas. Citer-based outcome measures were also compared with more traditional citation-based measures for levels of association. The authors found that there are significant differences in citer-based outcomes among the three broad subject areas examined and that there is a high degree of correlation between citer and citation-based measures for all measures compared, except for two outcomes calculated for the social sciences. Citer-based measures do produce slightly different rankings of authors based on citer counts when compared to more traditional citation counts. Examples are provided. Citation measures may not adequately address the influence, or reach, of an author because citations usually do not address the origin of the citation beyond self-citations.
    Date
    28. 9.2010 12:54:22
    Type
    a
  9. ¬Die deutsche Zeitschrift für Dokumentation, Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis von 1950 bis 2011 : eine vorläufige Bilanz in vier Abschnitten (2012) 0.01 
    0.012325386 = product of:
  0.024650771 = sum of:
    0.0067304084 = weight(_text_:a in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067304084 = score(doc=402,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2012 19:35:26
    Footnote
    Besteht aus 4 Teilen: Teil 1: Eden, D., A. Arndt, A. Hoffer, T. Raschke u. P. Schön: Die Nachrichten für Dokumentation in den Jahren 1950 bis 1962 (S.159-163). Teil 2: Brose, M., E. durst, D. Nitzsche, D. Veckenstedt u. R. Wein: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1963-1975 (S.164-170). Teil 3: Bösel, J., G. Ebert, P. Garz,, M. Iwanow u. B. Russ: Methoden und Ergebnisse einer statistischen Auswertung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1976 bis 1988 (S.171-174). Teil 4: Engelage, H., S. Jansen, R. Mertins, K. Redel u. S. Ring: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) / "Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis" (IWP) 1989-2011 (S.164-170).
    Type
    a
  10. Ntuli, H.; Inglesi-Lotz, R.; Chang, T.; Pouris, A.: Does research output cause economic growth or vice versa? : evidence from 34 OECD countries (2015) 0.01 
    0.012325386 = product of:
  0.024650771 = sum of:
    0.0067304084 = weight(_text_:a in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067304084 = score(doc=2132,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2132, 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=2132)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2132, 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=2132)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The causal relation between research and economic growth is of particular importance for political support of science and technology as well as for academic purposes. This article revisits the causal relationship between research articles published and economic growth in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries for the period 1981-2011, using bootstrap panel causality analysis, which accounts for cross-section dependency and heterogeneity across countries. The article, by the use of the specific method and the choice of the country group, makes a contribution to the existing literature. Our empirical results support unidirectional causality running from research output (in terms of total number of articles published) to economic growth for the US, Finland, Hungary, and Mexico; the opposite causality from economic growth to research articles published for Canada, France, Italy, New Zealand, the UK, Austria, Israel, and Poland; and no causality for the rest of the countries. Our findings provide important policy implications for research policies and strategies for OECD countries.
    Date
    8. 7.2015 22:00:42
    Type
    a
  11. Li, J.; Shi, D.: Sleeping beauties in genius work : when were they awakened? (2016) 0.01 
    0.012325386 = product of:
  0.024650771 = sum of:
    0.0067304084 = weight(_text_:a in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067304084 = score(doc=2647,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    "Genius work," proposed by Avramescu, refers to scientific articles whose citations grow exponentially in an extended period, for example, over 50 years. Such articles were defined as "sleeping beauties" by van Raan, who quantitatively studied the phenomenon of delayed recognition. However, the criteria adopted by van Raan at times are not applicable and may confer recognition prematurely. To revise such deficiencies, this paper proposes two new criteria, which are applicable (but not limited) to exponential citation curves. We searched for genius work among articles of Nobel Prize laureates during the period of 1901-2012 on the Web of Science, finding 25 articles of genius work out of 21,438 papers including 10 (by van Raan's criteria) sleeping beauties and 15 nonsleeping-beauties. By our new criteria, two findings were obtained through empirical analysis: (a) the awakening periods for genius work depend on the increase rate b in the exponential function, and (b) lower b leads to a longer sleeping period.
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:13:32
    Type
    a
  12. Dobrota, M.; Dobrota, M.: ARWU ranking uncertainty and sensitivity : what if the award factor was Excluded? (2016) 0.01 
    0.012325386 = product of:
  0.024650771 = sum of:
    0.0067304084 = weight(_text_:a in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067304084 = score(doc=2652,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2652, 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=2652)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2652, 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=2652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) uses six university performance indicators, including "Alumni" and "Awards"-the number of alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals. These two indicators raised doubts about the reliability of this ranking method because they are difficult to cope with. Recently, a newsletter was published featuring a reduced ARWU ranking list, leaving out Nobel Prize and Fields Medal indicators: the Alternative Ranking (Excluding Award Factor). We used uncertainty and sensitivity analyses to examine and compare the stability and confidence of the official ARWU ranking and the Alternative Ranking. The results indicate that if the ARWU ranking is reduced to the 4-indicator Alternative Ranking, it shows greater certainty and stability in ranking universities.
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:40:53
    Type
    a
  13. Ridenour, L.: Boundary objects : measuring gaps and overlap between research areas (2016) 0.01 
    0.012325386 = product of:
  0.024650771 = sum of:
    0.0067304084 = weight(_text_:a in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067304084 = score(doc=2835,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The aim of this paper is to develop methodology to determine conceptual overlap between research areas. It investigates patterns of terminology usage in scientific abstracts as boundary objects between research specialties. Research specialties were determined by high-level classifications assigned by Thomson Reuters in their Essential Science Indicators file, which provided a strictly hierarchical classification of journals into 22 categories. Results from the query "network theory" were downloaded from the Web of Science. From this file, two top-level groups, economics and social sciences, were selected and topically analyzed to provide a baseline of similarity on which to run an informetric analysis. The Places & Spaces Map of Science (Klavans and Boyack 2007) was used to determine the proximity of disciplines to one another in order to select the two disciplines use in the analysis. Groups analyzed share common theories and goals; however, groups used different language to describe their research. It was found that 61% of term words were shared between the two groups.
    Type
    a
  14. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.01 
    0.012325386 = product of:
  0.024650771 = sum of:
    0.0067304084 = weight(_text_:a in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067304084 = score(doc=4291,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Counts of tweets and Mendeley user libraries have been proposed as altmetric alternatives to citation counts for the impact assessment of articles. Although both have been investigated to discover whether they correlate with article citations, it is not known whether users tend to tweet or save (in Mendeley) the same kinds of articles that they cite. In response, this article compares pairs of articles that are tweeted, saved to a Mendeley library, or cited by the same user, but possibly a different user for each source. The study analyzes 1,131,318 articles published in 2012, with minimum tweeted (10), saved to Mendeley (100), and cited (10) thresholds. The results show surprisingly minor overall overlaps between the three phenomena. The importance of journals for Twitter and the presence of many bots at different levels of activity suggest that this site has little value for impact altmetrics. The moderate differences between patterns of saving and citation suggest that Mendeley can be used for some types of impact assessments, but sensitivity is needed for underlying differences.
    Date
    28. 7.2018 10:00:22
    Type
    a
  15. Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010) 0.01 
    0.012046281 = product of:
  0.024092562 = sum of:
    0.009158926 = weight(_text_:a in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009158926 = score(doc=4147,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
    0.014933636 = product of:
      0.029867273 = sum of:
        0.029867273 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029867273 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.
    Date
    8. 1.2011 19:22:13
    Type
    a
  16. Liu, D.-R.; Shih, M.-J.: Hybrid-patent classification based on patent-network analysis (2011) 0.01 
    0.012046281 = product of:
  0.024092562 = sum of:
    0.009158926 = weight(_text_:a in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009158926 = score(doc=4189,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 4189, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4189)
    0.014933636 = product of:
      0.029867273 = sum of:
        0.029867273 = weight(_text_:22 in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029867273 = score(doc=4189,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4189, 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=4189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Effective patent management is essential for organizations to maintain their competitive advantage. The classification of patents is a critical part of patent management and industrial analysis. This study proposes a hybrid-patent-classification approach that combines a novel patent-network-based classification method with three conventional classification methods to analyze query patents and predict their classes. The novel patent network contains various types of nodes that represent different features extracted from patent documents. The nodes are connected based on the relationship metrics derived from the patent metadata. The proposed classification method predicts a query patent's class by analyzing all reachable nodes in the patent network and calculating their relevance to the query patent. It then classifies the query patent with a modified k-nearest neighbor classifier. To further improve the approach, we combine it with content-based, citation-based, and metadata-based classification methods to develop a hybrid-classification approach. We evaluate the performance of the hybrid approach on a test dataset of patent documents obtained from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and compare its performance with that of the three conventional methods. The results demonstrate that the proposed patent-network-based approach yields more accurate class predictions than the patent network-based approach.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:04:21
    Type
    a
  17. Liu, S.; Chen, C.: ¬The differences between latent topics in abstracts and citation contexts of citing papers (2013) 0.01 
    0.012046281 = product of:
  0.024092562 = sum of:
    0.009158926 = weight(_text_:a in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009158926 = score(doc=671,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
    0.014933636 = product of:
      0.029867273 = sum of:
        0.029867273 = weight(_text_:22 in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029867273 = score(doc=671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 671, 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=671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Although it is commonly expected that the citation context of a reference is likely to provide more detailed and direct information about the nature of a citation, few studies in the literature have specifically addressed the extent to which the information in different parts of a scientific publication differs. Do abstracts tend to use conceptually broader terms than sentences in a citation context in the body of a publication? In this article, we propose a method to analyze and compare latent topics in scientific publications, in particular, from abstracts of papers that cited a target reference and from sentences that cited the target reference. We conducted an experiment and applied topical modeling techniques to full-text papers in eight biomedicine journals. Topics derived from the two sources are compared in terms of their similarities and broad-narrow relationships defined based on information entropy. The results show that abstracts and citation contexts are characterized by distinct sets of topics with moderate overlaps. Furthermore, the results confirm that topics from abstracts of citing papers have broader terms than topics from citation contexts formed by citing sentences. The method and the findings could be used to enhance and extend the current methodologies for research evaluation and citation evaluation.
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:50:00
    Type
    a
  18. Zitt, M.; Lelu, A.; Bassecoulard, E.: Hybrid citation-word representations in science mapping : Portolan charts of research fields? (2011) 0.01 
    0.011750514 = product of:
  0.023501027 = sum of:
    0.008567391 = weight(_text_:a in 4130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008567391 = score(doc=4130,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 4130, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4130)
    0.014933636 = product of:
      0.029867273 = sum of:
        0.029867273 = weight(_text_:22 in 4130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029867273 = score(doc=4130,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4130, 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=4130)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The mapping of scientific fields, based on principles established in the seventies, has recently shown a remarkable development and applications are now booming with progress in computing efficiency. We examine here the convergence of two thematic mapping approaches, citation-based and word-based, which rely on quite different sociological backgrounds. A corpus in the nanoscience field was broken down into research themes, using the same clustering technique on the 2 networks separately. The tool for comparison is the table of intersections of the M clusters (here M=50) built on either side. A classical visual exploitation of such contingency tables is based on correspondence analysis. We investigate a rearrangement of the intersection table (block modeling), resulting in pseudo-map. The interest of this representation for confronting the two breakdowns is discussed. The amount of convergence found is, in our view, a strong argument in favor of the reliability of bibliometric mapping. However, the outcomes are not convergent at the degree where they can be substituted for each other. Differences highlight the complementarity between approaches based on different networks. In contrast with the strong informetric posture found in recent literature, where lexical and citation markers are considered as miscible tokens, the framework proposed here does not mix the two elements at an early stage, in compliance with their contrasted logic.
    Date
    8. 1.2011 18:22:50
    Type
    a
  19. Huang, M.-H.; Huang, W.-T.; Chang, C.-C.; Chen, D. Z.; Lin, C.-P.: The greater scattering phenomenon beyond Bradford's law in patent citation (2014) 0.01 
    0.011707859 = product of:
  0.023415718 = sum of:
    0.0054953555 = weight(_text_:a in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054953555 = score(doc=1352,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Patent analysis has become important for management as it offers timely and valuable information to evaluate R&D performance and identify the prospects of patents. This study explores the scattering patterns of patent impact based on citations in 3 distinct technological areas, the liquid crystal, semiconductor, and drug technological areas, to identify the core patents in each area. The research follows the approach from Bradford's law, which equally divides total citations into 3 zones. While the result suggests that the scattering of patent citations corresponded with features of Bradford's law, the proportion of patents in the 3 zones did not match the proportion as proposed by the law. As a result, the study shows that the distributions of citations in all 3 areas were more concentrated than what Bradford's law proposed. The Groos (1967) droop was also presented by the scattering of patent citations, and the growth rate of cumulative citation decreased in the third zone.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:11:29
    Type
    a
  20. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.01 
    0.011707859 = product of:
  0.023415718 = sum of:
    0.0054953555 = weight(_text_:a in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054953555 = score(doc=2856,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article introduces a new source of evidence of the value of medical-related research: citations from clinical guidelines. These give evidence that research findings have been used to inform the day-to-day practice of medical staff. To identify whether citations from guidelines can give different information from that of traditional citation counts, this article assesses the extent to which references in clinical guidelines tend to be highly cited in the academic literature and highly read in Mendeley. Using evidence from the United Kingdom, references associated with the UK's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines tended to be substantially more cited than comparable articles, unless they had been published in the most recent 3 years. Citation counts also seemed to be stronger indicators than Mendeley readership altmetrics. Hence, although presence in guidelines may be particularly useful to highlight the contributions of recently published articles, for older articles citation counts may already be sufficient to recognize their contributions to health in society.
    Date
    19. 3.2016 12:22:00
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 563
  • d 34
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 589
  • el 14
  • m 7
  • s 3
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications