Search (599 results, page 1 of 30)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Castanha, R.C.G.; Wolfram, D.: ¬The domain of knowledge organization : a bibliometric analysis of prolific authors and their intellectual space (2018) 0.09 
    0.08854112 = sum of:
  0.043063544 = product of:
    0.17225417 = sum of:
      0.17225417 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17225417 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.045477577 = sum of:
    0.0095431255 = weight(_text_:a in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0095431255 = score(doc=4150,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
    0.035934452 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035934452 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, 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=4150)
    Abstract
    The domain of knowledge organization (KO) represents a foundational area of information science. One way to better understand the intellectual structure of the KO domain is to apply bibliometric methods to key contributors to the literature. This study analyzes the most prolific contributing authors to the journal Knowledge Organization, the sources they cite and the citations they receive for the period 1993 to 2016. The analyses were conducted using visualization outcomes of citation, co-citation and author bibliographic coupling analysis to reveal theoretical points of reference among authors and the most prominent research themes that constitute this scientific community. Birger Hjørland was the most cited author, and was situated at or near the middle of each of the maps based on different citation relationships. The proximities between authors resulting from the different citation relationships demonstrate how authors situate themselves intellectually through the citations they give and how other authors situate them through the citations received. There is a consistent core of theoretical references as well among the most productive authors. We observed a close network of scholarly communication between the authors cited in this core, which indicates the actual role of the journal Knowledge Organization as a space for knowledge construction in the area of knowledge organization.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.13-22
    Type
    a
  2. Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015) 0.09 
    0.08590156 = sum of:
  0.026370928 = product of:
    0.10548371 = sum of:
      0.10548371 = weight(_text_:authors in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10548371 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.05953063 = sum of:
    0.008711642 = weight(_text_:a in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008711642 = score(doc=2590,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.050818987 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050818987 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = 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)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    17. 9.2018 18:22:23
    Type
    a
  3. Ajiferuke, I.; Lu, K.; Wolfram, D.: ¬A comparison of citer and citation-based measure outcomes for multiple disciplines (2010) 0.08 
    0.08286406 = sum of:
  0.03164511 = product of:
    0.12658045 = sum of:
      0.12658045 = weight(_text_:authors in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12658045 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.05121895 = sum of:
    0.00809761 = weight(_text_:a in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00809761 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = 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)
    0.043121338 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043121338 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = 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)
    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
  4. Gazni, A.; Ghaseminik, Z.: Author practices in citing other authors, institutions, and journals (2016) 0.07 
    0.07084429 = sum of:
  0.06808943 = product of:
    0.27235773 = sum of:
      0.27235773 = weight(_text_:authors in 3129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.27235773 = score(doc=3129,freq=40.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          1.1262684 = fieldWeight in 3129, product of:
            6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
              40.0 = termFreq=40.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3129)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.002754863 = product of:
    0.005509726 = sum of:
      0.005509726 = weight(_text_:a in 3129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005509726 = score(doc=3129,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 3129, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3129)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study explores the extent to which authors with different impact and productivity levels cite journals, institutions, and other authors through an analysis of the scientific papers of 37,717 authors during 1990-2013. The results demonstrate that the core-scatter distribution of cited authors, institutions, and journals varies for authors in each impact and productivity class. All authors in the science network receive the majority of their credit from high-impact authors; however, this effect decreases as authors' impact levels decrease. Similarly, the proportion of citations that lower-impact authors make to each other increases as authors' impact levels decrease. High-impact authors, who have the highest degree of membership in the science network, publish fewer papers in comparison to highly productive authors. However, authors with the highest impact make both more references per paper and also more citations to papers in the science network. This suggests that high-impact authors produce the most relevant work in the science network. Comparing practices by productivity level, authors receive the majority of their credit from highly productive authors and authors cite highly productive authors more frequently than less productive authors.
    Type
    a
  5. Torres-Salinas, D.; Gorraiz, J.; Robinson-Garcia, N.: ¬The insoluble problems of books : what does Altmetric.com have to offer? (2018) 0.07 
    0.066829056 = sum of:
  0.029835295 = product of:
    0.11934118 = sum of:
      0.11934118 = weight(_text_:authors in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11934118 = score(doc=4633,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.49350607 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.036993764 = sum of:
    0.008246203 = weight(_text_:a in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008246203 = score(doc=4633,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = queryNorm
        0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    0.02874756 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02874756 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX. Design/methodology/approach The authors perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, platform offers for books. The authors use two distinct data sets of books. On the one hand, the authors analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other hand, the authors use Clarivate's Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com's capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, the authors compare the findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX. Findings Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries, such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, the authors find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. The comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools. Practical implications This study targets different audience which can benefit from the findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool. Originality/value This is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com's functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via PlumX.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Type
    a
  6. Shah, T.A.; Gul, S.; Gaur, R.C.: Authors self-citation behaviour in the field of Library and Information Science (2015) 0.07 
    0.06553686 = sum of:
  0.033702552 = product of:
    0.13481021 = sum of:
      0.13481021 = weight(_text_:authors in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13481021 = score(doc=2597,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.55747443 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.031834304 = sum of:
    0.0066801873 = weight(_text_:a in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066801873 = score(doc=2597,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = queryNorm
        0.10921837 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
    0.025154116 = weight(_text_:22 in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025154116 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = queryNorm
        0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the author self-citation behavior in the field of Library and Information Science. Various factors governing the author self-citation behavior have also been studied. Design/methodology/approach The 2012 edition of Social Science Citation Index was consulted for the selection of LIS journals. Under the subject heading "Information Science and Library Science" there were 84 journals and out of these 12 journals were selected for the study based on systematic sampling. The study was confined to original research and review articles that were published in select journals in the year 2009. The main reason to choose 2009 was to get at least five years (2009-2013) citation data from Web of Science Core Collection (excluding Book Citation Index) and SciELO Citation Index. A citation was treated as self-citation whenever one of the authors of citing and cited paper was common, i.e., the set of co-authors of the citing paper and that of the cited one are not disjoint. To minimize the risk of homonyms, spelling variances and misspelling in authors' names, the authors compared full author names in citing and cited articles. Findings A positive correlation between number of authors and total number of citations exists with no correlation between number of authors and number/share of self-citations, i.e., self-citations are not affected by the number of co-authors in a paper. Articles which are produced in collaboration attract more self-citations than articles produced by only one author. There is no statistically significant variation in citations counts (total and self-citations) in works that are result of different types of collaboration. A strong and statistically significant positive correlation exists between total citation count and frequency of self-citations. No relation could be ascertained between total citation count and proportion of self-citations. Authors tend to cite more of their recent works than the work of other authors. Total citation count and number of self-citations are positively correlated with the impact factor of source publication and correlation coefficient for total citations is much higher than that for self-citations. A negative correlation exhibits between impact factor and the share of self-citations. Of particular note is that the correlation in all the cases is of weak nature. Research limitations/implications The research provides an understanding of the author self-citations in the field of LIS. readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study. Originality/value Readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Type
    a
  7. Chang, Y.-W.; Huang, M.-H.: ¬A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science : using three bibliometric methods (2012) 0.06 
    0.06421423 = sum of:
  0.021531772 = product of:
    0.08612709 = sum of:
      0.08612709 = weight(_text_:authors in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08612709 = score(doc=4959,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.04268246 = sum of:
    0.006748009 = weight(_text_:a in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006748009 = score(doc=4959,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
    0.035934452 = weight(_text_:22 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035934452 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4959, 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=4959)
    Abstract
    This study uses three bibliometric methods: direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-authorship analysis, to investigate interdisciplinary changes in library and information science (LIS) from 1978 to 2007. The results reveal that LIS researchers most frequently cite publications in their own discipline. In addition, half of all co-authors of LIS articles are affiliated with LIS-related institutes. The results confirm that the degree of interdisciplinarity within LIS has increased, particularly co-authorship. However, the study found sources of direct citations in LIS articles are widely distributed across 30 disciplines, but co-authors of LIS articles are distributed across only 25 disciplines. The degree of interdisciplinarity was found ranging from 0.61 to 0.82 with citation to references in all articles being the highest and that of co-authorship being the lowest. Percentages of contribution attributable to LIS show a decreasing tendency based on the results of direct citation and co-authorship analysis, but an increasing tendency based on those of bibliographic coupling analysis. Such differences indicate each of the three bibliometric methods has its strength and provides insights respectively for viewing various aspects of interdisciplinarity, suggesting the use of no single bibliometric method can reveal all aspects of interdisciplinarity due to its multifaceted nature.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.22-33
    Type
    a
  8. Heneberg, P.: Supposedly uncited articles of Nobel laureates and Fields medalists can be prevalently attributed to the errors of omission and commission (2013) 0.06 
    0.057907723 = sum of:
  0.0152252605 = product of:
    0.060901042 = sum of:
      0.060901042 = weight(_text_:authors in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060901042 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.04268246 = sum of:
    0.006748009 = weight(_text_:a in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006748009 = score(doc=660,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
    0.035934452 = weight(_text_:22 in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035934452 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 660, 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=660)
    Abstract
    Several independent authors reported a high share of uncited publications, which include those produced by top scientists. This share was repeatedly reported to exceed 10% of the total papers produced, without any explanation of this phenomenon and the lack of difference in uncitedness between average and successful researchers. In this report, we analyze the uncitedness among two independent groups of highly visible scientists (mathematicians represented by Fields medalists, and researchers in physiology or medicine represented by Nobel Prize laureates in the respective field). Analysis of both groups led to the identical conclusion: over 90% of the uncited database records of highly visible scientists can be explained by the inclusion of editorial materials progress reports presented at international meetings (meeting abstracts), discussion items (letters to the editor, discussion), personalia (biographic items), and by errors of omission and commission of the Web of Science (WoS) database and of the citing documents. Only a marginal amount of original articles and reviews were found to be uncited (0.9 and 0.3%, respectively), which is in strong contrast with the previously reported data, which never addressed the document types among the uncited records.
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:21:46
    Type
    a
  9. Freitas, J.L.; Gabriel Jr., R.F.; Bufrem, L.S.: Theoretical approximations between Brazilian and Spanish authors' production in the field of knowledge organization in the production of journals on information science in Brazil (2012) 0.06 
    0.057515755 = sum of:
  0.024360416 = product of:
    0.097441666 = sum of:
      0.097441666 = weight(_text_:authors in 144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.097441666 = score(doc=144,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 144, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=144)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.03315534 = sum of:
    0.0044077807 = weight(_text_:a in 144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044077807 = score(doc=144,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = queryNorm
        0.072065435 = fieldWeight in 144, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=144)
    0.02874756 = weight(_text_:22 in 144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02874756 = score(doc=144,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 144, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=144)
    Abstract
    This work identifies and analyzes literature about knowledge organization (KO), expressed in scientific journals' communication of information science (IS). It performs an exploratory study on the Base de Dados Referencial de Artigos de Periódicos em Ciência da Informação (BRAPCI, Reference Database of Journal Articles on Information Science) between the years 2000 and 2010. The descriptors relating to "knowledge organization" are used in order to recover and analyze the corresponding articles and to identify descriptors and concepts which integrate the semantic universe related to KO. Through the analysis of content, based on metrical studies, this article gathers and interprets data relating to documents and authors. Through this, it demonstrates the development of this field and its research fronts according to the observed characteristics, as well as noting the transformation indicative in the production of knowledge. The work describes the influences of the Spanish researchers on Brazilian literature in the fields of knowledge and information organization. As a result, it presents the most cited and productive authors, the theoretical currents which support them, and the most significant relationships of the Spanish-Brazilian authors network. Based on the constant key-words analysis in the cited articles, the co-existence of the French conception current and the incipient Spanish influence in Brazil is observed. Through this, it contributes to the comprehension of the thematic range relating to KO, stimulating both criticism and self-criticism, debate and knowledge creation, based on studies that have been developed and institutionalized in academic contexts in Spain and Brazil.
    Content
    Beitrag einer Section "Selected Papers from the 1ST Brazilian Conference on Knowledge Organization And Representation, Faculdade de Ciência da Informação, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro Brasília, DF Brasil, October 20-22, 2011" Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_3_g.pdf.
    Type
    a
  10. Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017) 0.05 
    0.052206516 = sum of:
  0.017225416 = product of:
    0.068901666 = sum of:
      0.068901666 = weight(_text_:authors in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.068901666 = score(doc=4051,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.28492588 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0349811 = sum of:
    0.0062335427 = weight(_text_:a in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062335427 = score(doc=4051,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.02874756 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02874756 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    Abstract
    Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Type
    a
  11. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.05 
    0.047796495 = product of:
  0.09559299 = sum of:
    0.09559299 = sum of:
      0.009350315 = weight(_text_:a in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009350315 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
      0.086242676 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.086242676 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
    Type
    a
  12. Mongeon, P.; Larivière, V.: Costly collaborations : the impact of scientific fraud on co-authors' careers (2016) 0.05 
    0.04695951 = sum of:
  0.043063544 = product of:
    0.17225417 = sum of:
      0.17225417 = weight(_text_:authors in 2769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17225417 = score(doc=2769,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 2769, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2769)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0038959642 = product of:
    0.0077919285 = sum of:
      0.0077919285 = weight(_text_:a in 2769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0077919285 = score(doc=2769,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2769, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2769)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Over the past few years, several major scientific fraud cases have shocked the scientific community. The number of retractions each year has also increased tremendously, especially in the biomedical field, and scientific misconduct accounts for more than half of those retractions. It is assumed that co-authors of retracted papers are affected by their colleagues' misconduct, and the aim of this study is to provide empirical evidence of the effect of retractions in biomedical research on co-authors' research careers. Using data from the Web of Science, we measured the productivity, impact, and collaboration of 1,123 co-authors of 293 retracted articles for a period of 5 years before and after the retraction. We found clear evidence that collaborators do suffer consequences of their colleagues' misconduct and that a retraction for fraud has higher consequences than a retraction for error. Our results also suggest that the extent of these consequences is closely linked with the ranking of co-authors on the retracted paper, being felt most strongly by first authors, followed by the last authors, with the impact is less important for middle authors.
    Type
    a
  13. Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016) 0.05 
    0.04695951 = sum of:
  0.043063544 = product of:
    0.17225417 = sum of:
      0.17225417 = weight(_text_:authors in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17225417 = score(doc=3231,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0038959642 = product of:
    0.0077919285 = sum of:
      0.0077919285 = weight(_text_:a in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0077919285 = score(doc=3231,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.
    Type
    a
  14. Arboit, A.E.; Cabrini Gracio, M.C.; Oliveira, E.F.T. de; Bufrem, L.S.: ¬The relationship between authors and main thematic categories in the field of knowledge organization : a bibliometric approach (2012) 0.05 
    0.045528818 = sum of:
  0.04085366 = product of:
    0.16341464 = sum of:
      0.16341464 = weight(_text_:authors in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16341464 = score(doc=824,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.67576104 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0046751574 = product of:
    0.009350315 = sum of:
      0.009350315 = weight(_text_:a in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009350315 = score(doc=824,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This is a study about the relationships between authors and the main thematic categories in the papers published in the last five International ISKO Conferences, held between 2002 and 2010. The aim is to map the domain as ISKO conferences are considered the most representative forum in the field. The published papers are considered to indicate the relationships between authors and themes. The Classification Scheme for Knowledge Organization Literature (CSKOL) was used to categorize the papers. The theoretical and methodological foundations of the study can be found in the concept of domain analysis proposed by Hjørland. The analysis of the papers (n=146) led to the identification of the most productive authors, the networks representing the relationships between the authors as also the categories that constitute the primary areas of research.
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
    Type
    a
  15. Milard, B.: ¬The social circles behind scientific references : relationships between citing and cited authors in chemistry publications (2014) 0.04 
    0.04176761 = sum of:
  0.036540624 = product of:
    0.1461625 = sum of:
      0.1461625 = weight(_text_:authors in 1539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1461625 = score(doc=1539,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.60441905 = fieldWeight in 1539, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1539)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.005226985 = product of:
    0.01045397 = sum of:
      0.01045397 = weight(_text_:a in 1539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01045397 = score(doc=1539,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 1539, 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=1539)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper provides a better understanding of the implications of researchers' social networks in bibliographic references. Using a set of chemistry papers and conducting interviews with their authors (n = 32), I characterize the type of relation the author has with the authors of the references contained in his/her paper (n = 3,623). I show that citation relationships do not always involve underlying personal exchanges and that unknown references are an essential component, revealing segmentations in scientific groups. The relationships implied by references are of various strengths and origins. Several inclusive social circles are then identified: co-authors, close acquaintances, colleagues, invisible colleges, peers, contactables, and strangers. I conclude that publication is a device that contributes to a relatively stable distribution among the various social circles that structure scientific sociability.
    Type
    a
  16. Yan, S.; Rousseau, R.; Huang, S.: Contributions of chinese authors in PLOS ONE (2016) 0.04 
    0.0416429 = sum of:
  0.036919296 = product of:
    0.14767718 = sum of:
      0.14767718 = weight(_text_:authors in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14767718 = score(doc=2765,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.61068267 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.004723606 = product of:
    0.009447212 = sum of:
      0.009447212 = weight(_text_:a in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009447212 = score(doc=2765,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Beginning with a short review of Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals, we focus on PLOS ONE and more specifically the contributions of Chinese authors to this journal. It is shown that their contribution is growing exponentially. In 2013 almost one fifth of all publications in this journal had at least one Chinese author. The average number of citations per publication is approximately the same for articles with a Chinese author and for articles without any Chinese coauthor. Using the odds-ratio, we could not find arguments that Chinese authors in PLOS ONE excessively cite other Chinese contributions.
    Type
    a
  17. Chaves Guimarães, J.A.; Tennis, J.T.: Constant pioneers : the citation frontiers of indexing theory in the ISKO international proceedings (2012) 0.04 
    0.03984924 = sum of:
  0.034450833 = product of:
    0.13780333 = sum of:
      0.13780333 = weight(_text_:authors in 818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13780333 = score(doc=818,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.56985176 = fieldWeight in 818, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=818)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.005398407 = product of:
    0.010796814 = sum of:
      0.010796814 = weight(_text_:a in 818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010796814 = score(doc=818,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 818, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=818)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Presents a citation analysis of indexing research in the ISKO Proceedings. Understanding that there are different traditions of research into indexing, we look for evidence of this in the citing and cited authors. Three areas of cited and citing authors surface, after applying Price's elitism analysis, each roughly corresponding to geographic distributions.
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
    Type
    a
  18. Haustein, S.; Sugimoto, C.; Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication : Guest editorial (2015) 0.04 
    0.038793437 = sum of:
  0.009135156 = product of:
    0.036540624 = sum of:
      0.036540624 = weight(_text_:authors in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036540624 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.15110476 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02965828 = sum of:
    0.00809761 = weight(_text_:a in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00809761 = score(doc=3809,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.021560669 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021560669 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.053045183 = queryNorm
        0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    Abstract
    This year marks 350 years since the inaugural publications of both the Journal des Sçavans and the Philosophical Transactions, first published in 1665 and considered the birth of the peer-reviewed journal article. This form of scholarly communication has not only remained the dominant model for disseminating new knowledge (particularly for science and medicine), but has also increased substantially in volume. Derek de Solla Price - the "father of scientometrics" (Merton and Garfield, 1986, p. vii) - was the first to document the exponential increase in scientific journals and showed that "scientists have always felt themselves to be awash in a sea of the scientific literature" (Price, 1963, p. 15), as, for example, expressed at the 1948 Royal Society's Scientific Information Conference: Not for the first time in history, but more acutely than ever before, there was a fear that scientists would be overwhelmed, that they would be no longer able to control the vast amounts of potentially relevant material that were pouring forth from the world's presses, that science itself was under threat (Bawden and Robinson, 2008, p. 183).
    One of the solutions to help scientists filter the most relevant publications and, thus, to stay current on developments in their fields during the transition from "little science" to "big science", was the introduction of citation indexing as a Wellsian "World Brain" (Garfield, 1964) of scientific information: It is too much to expect a research worker to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the bibliographic descendants of antecedent papers. It would not be excessive to demand that the thorough scholar check all papers that have cited or criticized such papers, if they could be located quickly. The citation index makes this check practicable (Garfield, 1955, p. 108). In retrospective, citation indexing can be perceived as a pre-social web version of crowdsourcing, as it is based on the concept that the community of citing authors outperforms indexers in highlighting cognitive links between papers, particularly on the level of specific ideas and concepts (Garfield, 1983). Over the last 50 years, citation analysis and more generally, bibliometric methods, have developed from information retrieval tools to research evaluation metrics, where they are presumed to make scientific funding more efficient and effective (Moed, 2006). However, the dominance of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has also led to significant goal displacement (Merton, 1957) and the oversimplification of notions of "research productivity" and "scientific quality", creating adverse effects such as salami publishing, honorary authorships, citation cartels, and misuse of indicators (Binswanger, 2015; Cronin and Sugimoto, 2014; Frey and Osterloh, 2006; Haustein and Larivière, 2015; Weingart, 2005).
    Furthermore, the rise of the web, and subsequently, the social web, has challenged the quasi-monopolistic status of the journal as the main form of scholarly communication and citation indices as the primary assessment mechanisms. Scientific communication is becoming more open, transparent, and diverse: publications are increasingly open access; manuscripts, presentations, code, and data are shared online; research ideas and results are discussed and criticized openly on blogs; and new peer review experiments, with open post publication assessment by anonymous or non-anonymous referees, are underway. The diversification of scholarly production and assessment, paired with the increasing speed of the communication process, leads to an increased information overload (Bawden and Robinson, 2008), demanding new filters. The concept of altmetrics, short for alternative (to citation) metrics, was created out of an attempt to provide a filter (Priem et al., 2010) and to steer against the oversimplification of the measurement of scientific success solely on the basis of number of journal articles published and citations received, by considering a wider range of research outputs and metrics (Piwowar, 2013). Although the term altmetrics was introduced in a tweet in 2010 (Priem, 2010), the idea of capturing traces - "polymorphous mentioning" (Cronin et al., 1998, p. 1320) - of scholars and their documents on the web to measure "impact" of science in a broader manner than citations was introduced years before, largely in the context of webometrics (Almind and Ingwersen, 1997; Thelwall et al., 2005):
    There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Type
    a
  19. Lu, K.; Wolfram, D.: Measuring author research relatedness : a comparison of word-based, topic-based, and author cocitation approaches (2012) 0.04 
    0.03840054 = sum of:
  0.034044717 = product of:
    0.13617887 = sum of:
      0.13617887 = weight(_text_:authors in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13617887 = score(doc=453,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.5631342 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.004355821 = product of:
    0.008711642 = sum of:
      0.008711642 = weight(_text_:a in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008711642 = score(doc=453,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Relationships between authors based on characteristics of published literature have been studied for decades. Author cocitation analysis using mapping techniques has been most frequently used to study how closely two authors are thought to be in intellectual space based on how members of the research community co-cite their works. Other approaches exist to study author relatedness based more directly on the text of their published works. In this study we present static and dynamic word-based approaches using vector space modeling, as well as a topic-based approach based on latent Dirichlet allocation for mapping author research relatedness. Vector space modeling is used to define an author space consisting of works by a given author. Outcomes for the two word-based approaches and a topic-based approach for 50 prolific authors in library and information science are compared with more traditional author cocitation analysis using multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis. The two word-based approaches produced similar outcomes except where two authors were frequent co-authors for the majority of their articles. The topic-based approach produced the most distinctive map.
    Type
    a
  20. Fang, H.: ¬A discussion of citations from the perspective of the contribution of the cited paper to the citing paper (2018) 0.04 
    0.03747407 = sum of:
  0.030450521 = product of:
    0.121802084 = sum of:
      0.121802084 = weight(_text_:authors in 4453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.121802084 = score(doc=4453,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 4453, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4453)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.00702355 = product of:
    0.0140471 = sum of:
      0.0140471 = weight(_text_:a in 4453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0140471 = score(doc=4453,freq=26.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.22966442 = fieldWeight in 4453, product of:
            5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
              26.0 = termFreq=26.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4453)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    To more reasonably allocate a paper's credit, this article argues that both a paper's authors and references contribute to a given paper. Accordingly, we quantitatively represent the proportion of contributions from each author and reference to a paper. A paper's credit can be allocated among its authors and references based on their contributions. All papers carry innate credit because of publication. If cited, they also carry external credit from the citing papers. The proportion of a paper's credit allocated to references can be regarded as a credit output and serves as an input for these references. In this scenario, only the credit assigned to a paper's authors remains as the paper's deserved credit. The credit of papers can be transferred in a direction opposite that of knowledge diffusion. Via this method, the estimate of an individual reference's contribution incorporates content-based citation analysis, a promising method to differentiate different citations. A paper's deserved credit represents the contribution of the paper's authors to the scientific community via the new knowledge they provide in the paper. Therefore, it is rational to evaluate papers according to their deserved credit, not the credit they carry.
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 563
  • d 34
  • More… Less…

Types

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

Themes

Subjects

Classifications