Search (110 results, page 3 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Albarrán, P.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: Differences in citation impact across countries (2015) 0.01 
    0.009469198 = product of:
  0.018938396 = sum of:
    0.018938396 = product of:
      0.037876792 = sum of:
        0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 1665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037876792 = score(doc=1665,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 1665, 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=1665)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Using a large data set, indexed by Thomson Reuters, consisting of 4.4 million articles published in 1998-2003 with a 5-year citation window for each year, this article studies country citation distributions for a partitioning of the world into 36 countries and two geographical areas in eight broad scientific fields and the all-sciences case. The two key findings are the following. First, country citation distributions are highly skewed and very similar to each other in all fields. Second, to a large extent, differences in country citation distributions can be accounted for by scale factors. The Empirical situation described in the article helps to understand why international comparisons of citation impact according to (a) mean citations and (b) the percentage of articles in each country belonging to the top 10% of the most cited articles are so similar to each other.
  2. Colavizza, G.; Boyack, K.W.; Eck, N.J. van; Waltman, L.: ¬The closer the better : similarity of publication pairs at different cocitation levels (2018) 0.01 
    0.009469198 = product of:
  0.018938396 = sum of:
    0.018938396 = product of:
      0.037876792 = sum of:
        0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037876792 = score(doc=4214,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 4214, 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=4214)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We investigated the similarities of pairs of articles that are cocited at the different cocitation levels of the journal, article, section, paragraph, sentence, and bracket. Our results indicate that textual similarity, intellectual overlap (shared references), author overlap (shared authors), proximity in publication time all rise monotonically as the cocitation level gets lower (from journal to bracket). While the main gain in similarity happens when moving from journal to article cocitation, all level changes entail an increase in similarity, especially section to paragraph and paragraph to sentence/bracket levels. We compared the results from four journals over the years 2010-2015: Cell, the European Journal of Operational Research, Physics Letters B, and Research Policy, with consistent general outcomes and some interesting differences. Our findings motivate the use of granular cocitation information as defined by meaningful units of text, with implications for, among others, the elaboration of maps of science and the retrieval of scholarly literature.
  3. Tüür-Fröhlich, T.: ¬Eine "autoritative" Datenbank auf dem Prüfstand : der Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) und seine Datenqualität (2018) 0.01 
    0.009469198 = product of:
  0.018938396 = sum of:
    0.018938396 = product of:
      0.037876792 = sum of:
        0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 4591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037876792 = score(doc=4591,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 4591, 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=4591)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Zitatdatenbanken bilden die Datengrundlagen für zahlreiche szientometrische Untersuchungen, Evaluationen wissenschaftlicher Leistungen und Uni-Rankings. In der Literatur finden sich kaum Hinweise auf endogene Fehler (Original richtig, Datenbankeintrag falsch) in den kostenpflichtigen Datenbanken. Banale Fehler (z. B. Falschschreibung der Namen von Autorinnen oder Autoren) in Datenbanken hätten nur geringe Relevanz. Die Fehlersuche zu Pierre Bourdieu als "cited author" im SSCI (Vergleich Original - SSCI-Record) ergab mehr als 85 Mutationen. Die Fallstudien zeigen eine hohe Anzahl endogener Datenbankfehler. In den Rechtswissenschaften übliche Referenzen in Fußnoten laufen große Gefahr, in Phantomreferenzen verwandelt zu werden (Fallstudie Harvard Law Review: 99 Prozent Fehler). Dem Anspruch des SSCI, die "relevanten" globalen Sozialwissenschaften abzubilden - für alle im SSCI erfassten Disziplinen -, stehen offenbar Mängel in Datenerfassung und -verarbeitung im Wege.
  4. Haddow, G.; Hammarfelt, B.: Quality, impact, and quantification : indicators and metrics use by social scientists (2019) 0.01 
    0.009469198 = product of:
  0.018938396 = sum of:
    0.018938396 = product of:
      0.037876792 = sum of:
        0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 4671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037876792 = score(doc=4671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 4671, 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=4671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  5. Ajiferuke, I.; Lu, K.; Wolfram, D.: ¬A comparison of citer and citation-based measure outcomes for multiple disciplines (2010) 0.01 
    0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = 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(1/2)
    Date
    28. 9.2010 12:54:22
  6. Albarrán, P.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: References made and citations received by scientific articles (2011) 0.01 
    0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = 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(1/2)
    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.
  7. 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 
    0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = 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(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:06:52
  8. Hicks, D.; Wang, J.: Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists (2011) 0.01 
    0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = 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(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:21:28
  9. Jovanovic, M.: ¬Eine kleine Frühgeschichte der Bibliometrie (2012) 0.01 
    0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 326, 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=326)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2012 19:23:32
  10. Frandsen, T.F.; Nicolaisen, J.: ¬The ripple effect : citation chain reactions of a nobel prize (2013) 0.01 
    0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 654, 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=654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2013 16:21:09
  11. Bornmann, L.: How to analyze percentile citation impact data meaningfully in bibliometrics : the statistical analysis of distributions, percentile rank classes, and top-cited papers (2013) 0.01 
    0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 656, 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=656)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:44:17
  12. Wan, X.; Liu, F.: Are all literature citations equally important? : automatic citation strength estimation and its applications (2014) 0.01 
    0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:12:35
  13. 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 
    0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = 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(1/2)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:11:29
  14. Kronegger, L.; Mali, F.; Ferligoj, A.; Doreian, P.: Classifying scientific disciplines in Slovenia : a study of the evolution of collaboration structures (2015) 0.01 
    0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=1639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = 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(1/2)
    Date
    21. 1.2015 14:55:22
  15. 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 
    0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = 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(1/2)
    Date
    8. 7.2015 22:00:42
  16. Kumar, S.: Co-authorship networks : a review of the literature (2015) 0.01 
    0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=2586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2586, 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=2586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  17. Dobrota, M.; Dobrota, M.: ARWU ranking uncertainty and sensitivity : what if the award factor was Excluded? (2016) 0.01 
    0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = 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(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:40:53
  18. Ridenour, L.: Boundary objects : measuring gaps and overlap between research areas (2016) 0.01 
    0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = 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(1/2)
    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.
  19. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.01 
    0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = 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(1/2)
    Date
    19. 3.2016 12:22:00
  20. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.01 
    0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    16.11.2016 11:07:22

Authors

Languages

  • e 100
  • d 9
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 106
  • m 3
  • s 2
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications