Search (559 results, page 1 of 28)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013) 0.28 
    0.27833402 = product of:
  0.77933526 = sum of:
    0.15586706 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15586706 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20800096 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.15586706 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15586706 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20800096 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.15586706 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15586706 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20800096 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.15586706 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15586706 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20800096 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.15586706 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15586706 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20800096 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.35714287 = coord(5/14)
    Content
    Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
  2. Tuomaala, O.; Järvelin, K.; Vakkari, P.: Evolution of library and information science, 1965-2005 : content analysis of journal articles (2014) 0.01 
    0.0097395945 = product of:
  0.04545144 = sum of:
    0.013444485 = weight(_text_:system in 1309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013444485 = score(doc=1309,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 1309, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1309)
    0.014468643 = weight(_text_:information in 1309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014468643 = score(doc=1309,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.3359395 = fieldWeight in 1309, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1309)
    0.017538311 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017538311 = score(doc=1309,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 1309, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1309)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    This article first analyzes library and information science (LIS) research articles published in core LIS journals in 2005. It also examines the development of LIS from 1965 to 2005 in light of comparable data sets for 1965, 1985, and 2005. In both cases, the authors report (a) how the research articles are distributed by topic and (b) what approaches, research strategies, and methods were applied in the articles. In 2005, the largest research areas in LIS by this measure were information storage and retrieval, scientific communication, library and information-service activities, and information seeking. The same research areas constituted the quantitative core of LIS in the previous years since 1965. Information retrieval has been the most popular area of research over the years. The proportion of research on library and information-service activities decreased after 1985, but the popularity of information seeking and of scientific communication grew during the period studied. The viewpoint of research has shifted from library and information organizations to end users and development of systems for the latter. The proportion of empirical research strategies was high and rose over time, with the survey method being the single most important method. However, attention to evaluation and experiments increased considerably after 1985. Conceptual research strategies and system analysis, description, and design were quite popular, but declining. The most significant changes from 1965 to 2005 are the decreasing interest in library and information-service activities and the growth of research into information seeking and scientific communication.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.7, S.1446-1462
  3. Kronegger, L.; Mali, F.; Ferligoj, A.; Doreian, P.: Classifying scientific disciplines in Slovenia : a study of the evolution of collaboration structures (2015) 0.01 
    0.009643741 = product of:
  0.045004122 = sum of:
    0.027943838 = weight(_text_:system in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027943838 = score(doc=1639,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.36163113 = fieldWeight in 1639, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1639)
    0.0070881573 = weight(_text_:information in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070881573 = score(doc=1639,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1639, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1639)
    0.009972124 = product of:
      0.019944249 = sum of:
        0.019944249 = weight(_text_:22 in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019944249 = score(doc=1639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.2, S.321-339
  4. Glänzel, W.: Bibliometrics-aided retrieval - where information retrieval meets scientometrics (2015) 0.01 
    0.009389745 = product of:
  0.06572821 = sum of:
    0.014176315 = weight(_text_:information in 1690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014176315 = score(doc=1690,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 1690, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1690)
    0.051551897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051551897 = score(doc=1690,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.6946405 = fieldWeight in 1690, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1690)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Special Issue "Combining bibliometrics and information retrieval"
  5. Mayr, P.; Scharnhorst, A.: Scientometrics and information retrieval - weak-links revitalized (2015) 0.01 
    0.008038323 = product of:
  0.05626826 = sum of:
    0.014176315 = weight(_text_:information in 1688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014176315 = score(doc=1688,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 1688, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1688)
    0.042091947 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042091947 = score(doc=1688,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.5671716 = fieldWeight in 1688, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1688)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Footnote
    Editorial zu einem Special Issue "Combining bibliometrics and information retrieval"
  6. Wolfram, D.: ¬The symbiotic relationship between information retrieval and informetrics (2015) 0.01 
    0.008038323 = product of:
  0.05626826 = sum of:
    0.014176315 = weight(_text_:information in 1689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014176315 = score(doc=1689,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 1689, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1689)
    0.042091947 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042091947 = score(doc=1689,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.5671716 = fieldWeight in 1689, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1689)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Special Issue "Combining bibliometrics and information retrieval"
  7. Abbasi, M. K.; Frommholz, I.: Cluster-based polyrepresentation as science modelling approach for information retrieval (2015) 0.01 
    0.008038323 = product of:
  0.05626826 = sum of:
    0.014176315 = weight(_text_:information in 1691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014176315 = score(doc=1691,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 1691, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1691)
    0.042091947 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042091947 = score(doc=1691,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.5671716 = fieldWeight in 1691, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1691)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Special Issue "Combining bibliometrics and information retrieval"
  8. Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011) 0.01 
    0.007985508 = product of:
  0.037265703 = sum of:
    0.008269517 = weight(_text_:information in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008269517 = score(doc=4188,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
    0.017362041 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017362041 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
    0.011634145 = product of:
      0.02326829 = sum of:
        0.02326829 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02326829 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    This article aims to identify whether different weighted PageRank algorithms can be applied to author citation networks to measure the popularity and prestige of a scholar from a citation perspective. Information retrieval (IR) was selected as a test field and data from 1956-2008 were collected from Web of Science. Weighted PageRank with citation and publication as weighted vectors were calculated on author citation networks. The results indicate that both popularity rank and prestige rank were highly correlated with the weighted PageRank. Principal component analysis was conducted to detect relationships among these different measures. For capturing prize winners within the IR field, prestige rank outperformed all the other measures
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:02:21
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.236-245
  9. White, H. D.: Co-cited author retrieval and relevance theory : examples from the humanities (2015) 0.01 
    0.0074451594 = product of:
  0.052116115 = sum of:
    0.0100241685 = weight(_text_:information in 1687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0100241685 = score(doc=1687,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1687, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1687)
    0.042091947 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042091947 = score(doc=1687,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.5671716 = fieldWeight in 1687, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1687)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Special Issue "Combining bibliometrics and information retrieval"
  10. Karlsson, A.; Hammarfelt, B.; Steinhauer, H.J.; Falkman, G.; Olson, N.; Nelhans, G.; Nolin, J.: Modeling uncertainty in bibliometrics and information retrieval : an information fusion approach (2015) 0.01 
    0.0070778956 = product of:
  0.049545266 = sum of:
    0.014468643 = weight(_text_:information in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014468643 = score(doc=1696,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.3359395 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
    0.035076622 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035076622 = score(doc=1696,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.47264296 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Special Issue "Combining bibliometrics and information retrieval"
  11. Mutschke, P.; Mayr, P.: Science models for search : a study on combining scholarly information retrieval and scientometrics (2015) 0.01 
    0.006698603 = product of:
  0.046890218 = sum of:
    0.011813596 = weight(_text_:information in 1695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011813596 = score(doc=1695,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 1695, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1695)
    0.035076622 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035076622 = score(doc=1695,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.47264296 = fieldWeight in 1695, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1695)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Special Issue "Combining bibliometrics and information retrieval"
  12. 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 
    0.0066680554 = product of:
  0.031117592 = sum of:
    0.016133383 = weight(_text_:system in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016133383 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 4190, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4190)
    0.0050120843 = weight(_text_:information in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050120843 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4190, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4190)
    0.009972124 = product of:
      0.019944249 = sum of:
        0.019944249 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019944249 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.257-269
  13. Crespo, J.A.; Herranz, N.; Li, Y.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level (2014) 0.01 
    0.006294318 = product of:
  0.029373484 = sum of:
    0.013444485 = weight(_text_:system in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013444485 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.011752261 = product of:
      0.023504522 = sum of:
        0.023504522 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023504522 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.6, S.1244-1256
  14. Zitt, M.: Meso-level retrieval : IR-bibliometrics interplay and hybrid citation-words methods in scientific fields delineation (2015) 0.01 
    0.0062043 = product of:
  0.043430097 = sum of:
    0.008353474 = weight(_text_:information in 1692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008353474 = score(doc=1692,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1692, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1692)
    0.035076622 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035076622 = score(doc=1692,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.47264296 = fieldWeight in 1692, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1692)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Special Issue "Combining bibliometrics and information retrieval"
  15. Bornmann, L.: Interrater reliability and convergent validity of F1000Prime peer review (2015) 0.01 
    0.0058696326 = product of:
  0.041087426 = sum of:
    0.036075342 = weight(_text_:system in 2328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036075342 = score(doc=2328,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.46686378 = fieldWeight in 2328, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2328)
    0.0050120843 = weight(_text_:information in 2328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050120843 = score(doc=2328,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2328, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2328)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Peer review is the backbone of modern science. F1000Prime is a postpublication peer review system of the biomedical literature (papers from medical and biological journals). This study is concerned with the interrater reliability and convergent validity of the peer recommendations formulated in the F1000Prime peer review system. The study is based on about 100,000 papers with recommendations from faculty members. Even if intersubjectivity plays a fundamental role in science, the analyses of the reliability of the F1000Prime peer review system show a rather low level of agreement between faculty members. This result is in agreement with most other studies that have been published on the journal peer review system. Logistic regression models are used to investigate the convergent validity of the F1000Prime peer review system. As the results show, the proportion of highly cited papers among those selected by the faculty members is significantly higher than expected. In addition, better recommendation scores are also associated with higher performing papers.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2415-2426
  16. Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017) 0.01 
    0.005400037 = product of:
  0.025200171 = sum of:
    0.015210699 = weight(_text_:system in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015210699 = score(doc=4051,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.19684705 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.0033413896 = weight(_text_:information in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033413896 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.0066480828 = product of:
      0.0132961655 = sum of:
        0.0132961655 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0132961655 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    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
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Special issue on "The reward system of science".
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.5, S.557-575
  17. Perianes-Rodriguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The impact of classification systems in the evaluation of the research performance of the Leiden Ranking universities (2018) 0.01 
    0.0053012664 = product of:
  0.037108865 = sum of:
    0.03293213 = weight(_text_:system in 4374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03293213 = score(doc=4374,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.42618635 = fieldWeight in 4374, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4374)
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 4374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=4374,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4374, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4374)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    In this article, we investigate the consequences of choosing different classification systems-namely, the way publications (or journals) are assigned to scientific fields-for the ranking of research units. We study the impact of this choice on the ranking of 500 universities in the 2013 edition of the Leiden Ranking in two cases. First, we compare a Web of Science (WoS) journal-level classification system, consisting of 236 subject categories, and a publication-level algorithmically constructed system, denoted G8, consisting of 5,119 clusters. The result is that the consequences of the move from the WoS to the G8 system using the Top 1% citation impact indicator are much greater than the consequences of this move using the Top 10% indicator. Second, we compare the G8 classification system and a publication-level alternative of the same family, the G6 system, consisting of 1,363 clusters. The result is that, although less important than in the previous case, the consequences of the move from the G6 to the G8 system under the Top 1% indicator are still of a large order of magnitude.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.8, S.1046-1053
  18. Mayr, P.: Information Retrieval-Mehrwertdienste für Digitale Bibliotheken: : Crosskonkordanzen und Bradfordizing (2010) 0.00 
    0.0049224477 = product of:
  0.034457132 = sum of:
    0.008681185 = weight(_text_:information in 4910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008681185 = score(doc=4910,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4910, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4910)
    0.025775949 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025775949 = score(doc=4910,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 4910, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4910)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    RSWK
    Dokumentationssprache / Heterogenität / Information Retrieval / Ranking / Evaluation
    Subject
    Dokumentationssprache / Heterogenität / Information Retrieval / Ranking / Evaluation
  19. Bar-Ilan, J.; Levene, M.: ¬The hw-rank : an h-index variant for ranking web pages (2015) 0.00 
    0.0047366275 = product of:
  0.03315639 = sum of:
    0.008353474 = weight(_text_:information in 1694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008353474 = score(doc=1694,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1694, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1694)
    0.024802918 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024802918 = score(doc=1694,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1694, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1694)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Special Issue "Combining bibliometrics and information retrieval"
  20. Egghe, L.: ¬A new short proof of Naranan's theorem, explaining Lotka's law and Zipf's law (2010) 0.00 
    0.0046380223 = product of:
  0.032466155 = sum of:
    0.026618723 = weight(_text_:system in 3432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026618723 = score(doc=3432,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 3432, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3432)
    0.0058474317 = weight(_text_:information in 3432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058474317 = score(doc=3432,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3432, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3432)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Naranan's important theorem, published in Nature in 1970, states that if the number of journals grows exponentially and if the number of articles in each journal grows exponentially (at the same rate for each journal), then the system satisfies Lotka's law and a formula for the Lotka's exponent is given in function of the growth rates of the journals and the articles. This brief communication re-proves this result by showing that the system satisfies Zipf's law, which is equivalent with Lotka's law. The proof is short and algebraic and does not use infinitesimal arguments.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2581-2583

Authors

Languages

  • e 541
  • d 17
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 551
  • m 7
  • el 4
  • s 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications