Search (235 results, page 2 of 12)

0.015968615 = product of:
  0.079843074 = sum of:
    0.079843074 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079843074 = score(doc=608,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.45520115 = fieldWeight in 608, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=608)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose Wikipedia has the lofty goal of compiling all human knowledge. The purpose of the present study is to map the structure of the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) knowledge domain on Wikipedia, to identify patterns of knowledge representation on Wikipedia and to test the applicability of author bibliographic coupling analysis, an effective method for mapping knowledge domains represented in published scholarly documents, for Wikipedia data. Design/methodology/approach We adapted and followed the well-established procedures and techniques for author bibliographic coupling analysis (ABCA). Instead of bibliographic data from a citation database, we used all articles on TCM downloaded from the English version of Wikipedia as our dataset. An author bibliographic coupling network was calculated and then factor analyzed using SPSS. Factor analysis results were visualized. Factors were labeled upon manual examination of articles that authors who load primarily in each factor have significantly contributed references to. Clear factors were interpreted as topics. Findings Seven TCM topic areas are represented on Wikipedia, among which Acupuncture-related practices, Falun Gong and Herbal Medicine attracted the most significant contributors to TCM. Acupuncture and Qi Gong have the most connections to the TCM knowledge domain and also serve as bridges for other topics to connect to the domain. Herbal medicine is weakly linked to and non-herbal medicine is isolated from the rest of the TCM knowledge domain. It appears that specific topics are represented well on Wikipedia but their conceptual connections are not. ABCA is effective for mapping knowledge domains on Wikipedia but document-based bibliographic coupling analysis is not. Originality/value Given the prominent position of Wikipedia for both information users and for researchers on knowledge organization and information retrieval, it is important to study how well knowledge is represented and structured on Wikipedia. Such studies appear largely missing although studies from different perspectives both about Wikipedia and using Wikipedia as data are abundant. Author bibliographic coupling analysis is effective for mapping knowledge domains represented in published scholarly documents but has never been applied to mapping knowledge domains represented on Wikipedia.

0.01568087 = product of:
  0.078404345 = sum of:
    0.078404345 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.078404345 = score(doc=274,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 274, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=274)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study explores the similarity among six types of scholarly networks aggregated at the institution level, including bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks. Cosine distance is chosen to measure the similarities among the six networks. The authors found that topical networks and coauthorship networks have the lowest similarity; cocitation networks and citation networks have high similarity; bibliographic coupling networks and cocitation networks have high similarity; and coword networks and topical networks have high similarity. In addition, through multidimensional scaling, two dimensions can be identified among the six networks: Dimension 1 can be interpreted as citation-based versus noncitation-based, and Dimension 2 can be interpreted as social versus cognitive. The authors recommend the use of hybrid or heterogeneous networks to study research interaction and scholarly communications.

0.01568087 = product of:
  0.078404345 = sum of:
    0.078404345 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.078404345 = score(doc=686,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Journals in the Information Science & Library Science category of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) were compared using both bibliometric and bibliographic features. Data collected covered journal impact factor (JIF), number of issues per year, number of authors per article, longevity, editorial board membership, frequency of publication, number of databases indexing the journal, number of aggregators providing full-text access, country of publication, JCR categories, Dewey decimal classification, and journal statement of scope. Three features significantly correlated with JIF: number of editorial board members and number of JCR categories in which a journal is listed correlated positively; journal longevity correlated negatively with JIF. Coword analysis of journal descriptions provided a proximity clustering of journals, which differed considerably from the clusters based on editorial board membership. Finally, a multiple linear regression model was built to predict the JIF based on all the collected bibliographic features.

0.01568087 = product of:
  0.078404345 = sum of:
    0.078404345 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.078404345 = score(doc=1036,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 1036, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1036)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Historically, co-citation models have been based only on bibliographic information. Full-text analysis offers the opportunity to significantly improve the quality of the signals upon which these co-citation models are based. In this work we study the effect of reference proximity on the accuracy of co-citation clusters. Using a corpus of 270,521 full text documents from 2007, we compare the results of traditional co-citation clustering using only the bibliographic information to results from co-citation clustering where proximity between reference pairs is factored into the pairwise relationships. We find that accounting for reference proximity from full text can increase the textual coherence (a measure of accuracy) of a co-citation cluster solution by up to 30% over the traditional approach based on bibliographic information.

0.015654571 = product of:
  0.07827286 = sum of:
    0.07827286 = weight(_text_:line in 4722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07827286 = score(doc=4722,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25266227 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 4722, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4722)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

By developing a methodology for on-line citation analysis, the international characteristics of scientific journals have been analysed on the basis of correlations between the geographical distribution patterns of authors, citations and subscriptions. The study covered seven selected LIS journals. Assuming that the numbers of authors and citations in each geographical region follow the Poisson distribution, the hypothesis was tested, that the intensities are proportional to the subscriptions. In most cases the correlation between authors and citations was so positive that the international visibility and impact of the scientific journals can be defined by these two variables. As regards the distribution pattern of subscribers, authors and citations, however, the test showed very weak or no correlations. The analysis of the statistical significance of differences gave some useful data, the importance of which to marketing and publishing strategies is obvious. The paper suggests examining also the knowledge export of journals as an additional criterion for the evaluation of their impact, and the quality of research published in them. The comparison of Journal Impact Factors (JIF) is another contribution of this study, aimed to enhance the use of impact factor analysis with various time intervals. We demonstrate new and flexible ways of using the JIF for diachronous and synchronous analyses. The study brings new dimensions to the discussions of the impact, status and image of scientific journals. It focuses on the utilisation of informetric analysis to go beyond the simplistic use of the JIF and to get a deeper understanding of the "real" impact of international scientific journals and their market.

0.015654571 = product of:
  0.07827286 = sum of:
    0.07827286 = weight(_text_:line in 4002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07827286 = score(doc=4002,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25266227 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 4002, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4002)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study explored the feasibility of using Web hyperlink data to study European political Web sites. Ninety-six European Union (EU) political parties belonging to a wide range of ideological, historical, and linguistic backgrounds were included in the study. Various types of data on Web links to party Web sites were collected. The Web colink data were visualized using multidimensional scaling (MDS), while the inlink data were analyzed with a 2-way analysis of variance test. The results showed that Web hyperlink data did reflect some political patterns in the EU. The MDS maps showed clusters of political parties along ideological, historical, linguistic, and social lines. Statistical analysis based on inlink counts further confirmed that there was a significant difference along the line of the political history of a country, such that left-wing parties in the former communist countries received considerably fewer inlinks to their Web sites than left-wing parties in countries without a history of communism did. The study demonstrated the possibility of using Web hyperlink data to gain insights into political situations in the EU. This suggests the richness of Web hyperlink data and its potential in studying social-political phenomena.

0.015088923 = product of:
  0.07544462 = sum of:
    0.07544462 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07544462 = score(doc=4542,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.43012467 = fieldWeight in 4542, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4542)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The reciprocal relationship between bibliographic references and citations in the context of the scholarly communication system is examined. Semiotic analysis of referencing behaviours and citation counting reveals the complexity of prevailing sign systems and associated symbolic practices.

0.015088923 = product of:
  0.07544462 = sum of:
    0.07544462 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07544462 = score(doc=1201,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.43012467 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study analyses the coverage of seven free-access bibliographic databases (Crossref, Dimensions-non-subscription version, Google Scholar, Lens, Microsoft Academic, Scilit, and Semantic Scholar) to identify the potential reasons that might cause the exclusion of scholarly documents and how they could influence coverage. To do this, 116 k randomly selected bibliographic records from Crossref were used as a baseline. API endpoints and web scraping were used to query each database. The results show that coverage differences are mainly caused by the way each service builds their databases. While classic bibliographic databases ingest almost the exact same content from Crossref (Lens and Scilit miss 0.1% and 0.2% of the records, respectively), academic search engines present lower coverage (Google Scholar does not find: 9.8%, Semantic Scholar: 10%, and Microsoft Academic: 12%). Coverage differences are mainly attributed to external factors, such as web accessibility and robot exclusion policies (39.2%-46%), and internal requirements that exclude secondary content (6.5%-11.6%). In the case of Dimensions, the only classic bibliographic database with the lowest coverage (7.6%), internal selection criteria such as the indexation of full books instead of book chapters (65%) and the exclusion of secondary content (15%) are the main motives of missing publications.

0.014937273 = product of:
  0.07468636 = sum of:
    0.07468636 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07468636 = score(doc=5064,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 5064, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5064)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The quality of online and CD-ROM databases is far from satisfactory. Errors are frequently found in listings from online searches. Spelling mistakes are the most common but there are also more misleading errors such as variations of an author's name or absence of homogenity in the content of certain field. Describes breifly a bibliometric study of large amounts of data downloaded from databases to investigate bibliographic errors and data heterogeneity. Recommends that database producers should consider either the implementation of a common format or the recommendations of the Société Française de Bibliométrie

0.014250444 = product of:
  0.07125222 = sum of:
    0.07125222 = sum of:
      0.04073045 = weight(_text_:searching in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04073045 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18226127 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045055166 = queryNorm
          0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 882, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=882)
      0.030521767 = weight(_text_:22 in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030521767 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15777552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045055166 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 882, 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=882)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Compared to previous studies that generally detect scientific breakthroughs based on citation patterns, this article proposes a knowledge entity-based disruption indicator by quantifying the change of knowledge directly created and inspired by scientific breakthroughs to their evolutionary trajectories. Two groups of analytic units, including MeSH terms and their co-occurrences, are employed independently by the indicator to measure the change of knowledge. The effectiveness of the proposed indicators was evaluated against the four datasets of scientific breakthroughs derived from four recognition trials. In terms of identifying scientific breakthroughs, the proposed disruption indicator based on MeSH co-occurrences outperforms that based on MeSH terms and three earlier citation-based disruption indicators. It is also shown that in our indicator, measuring the change of knowledge inspired by the focal paper in its evolutionary trajectory is a larger contributor than measuring the change created by the focal paper. Our study not only offers empirical insights into conceptual understanding of scientific breakthroughs but also provides practical disruption indicator for scientists and science management agencies searching for valuable research.

Date

22. 1.2023 18:37:33

0.013067392 = product of:
  0.06533696 = sum of:
    0.06533696 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06533696 = score(doc=4338,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.3724989 = fieldWeight in 4338, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4338)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A model is presented of the manifestation of the birth and development of a scientific specialty in a collection of journal papers. The proposed model, Cumulative Advantage by Paper with Exemplars (CAPE) is an adaptation of Price's cumulative advantage model (D. Price, 1976). Two modifications are made: (a) references are cited in groups by paper, and (b) the model accounts for the generation of highly cited exemplar references immediately after the birth of the specialty. This simple growth process mimics many characteristic features of real collections of papers, including the structure of the paper-to-reference matrix, the reference-per-paper distribution, the paper-per-reference distribution, the bibliographic coupling distribution, the cocitation distribution, the bibliographic coupling clustering coefficient distribution, and the temporal distribution of exemplar references. The model yields a great deal of insight into the process that produces the connectedness and clustering of a collection of articles and references. Two examples are presented and successfully modeled: a collection of 131 articles an MEMS RF (microelectromechnical systems radio frequency) switches, and a collection of 901 articles an the subject of complex networks.

0.013067392 = product of:
  0.06533696 = sum of:
    0.06533696 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06533696 = score(doc=3535,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.3724989 = fieldWeight in 3535, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3535)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In 1965, Price foresaw the day when a citation-based taxonomy of science and technology would be delineated and correspondingly used for science policy. A taxonomy needs to be comprehensive and accurate if it is to be useful for policy making, especially now that policy makers are utilizing citation-based indicators to evaluate people, institutions and laboratories. Determining the accuracy of a taxonomy, however, remains a challenge. Previous work on the accuracy of partition solutions is sparse, and the results of those studies, although useful, have not been definitive. In this study we compare the accuracies of topic-level taxonomies based on the clustering of documents using direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-citation. Using a set of new gold standards-articles with at least 100 references-we find that direct citation is better at concentrating references than either bibliographic coupling or co-citation. Using the assumption that higher concentrations of references denote more accurate clusters, direct citation thus provides a more accurate representation of the taxonomy of scientific and technical knowledge than either bibliographic coupling or co-citation. We also find that discipline-level taxonomies based on journal schema are highly inaccurate compared to topic-level taxonomies, and recommend against their use.

0.012803378 = product of:
  0.064016886 = sum of:
    0.064016886 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064016886 = score(doc=589,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 589, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=589)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Q-analysis is a methodology for investigating a wide range of structural phenomena. Strutures are defined in terms of relations between members of sets and their salient features are revealed using techniques of algebraic topology. However, the basic method can be mastered by non-mathematicians. Q-analysis has been applied to problems as diverse as discovering the rules for the diagnosis of a rare disease and the study of tactics in a football match. Other applications include some of interest to librarians and information scientists. In bibliometrics, Q-analysis has proved capable of emulating techniques such as bibliographic coupling, co-citation analysis and co-word analysis. It has also been used to produce a classification scheme for television programmes based on different principles from most bibliographic classifications. This paper introduces the basic ideas of Q-analysis. Applications relevant to librarianship and information science are reviewed and present limitations of the approach described. New theoretical advances including some in other fields such as planning and design theory and artificial intelligence may lead to a still more powerful method of investigating structure

0.012803378 = product of:
  0.064016886 = sum of:
    0.064016886 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064016886 = score(doc=4240,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 4240, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4240)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper analyzes the bibliographic references made by all papers published by ACM in 2006. Both an automatic classification of all references and a human classification of a random sample of them resulted that around 40% of the references are to conference proceedings papers, around 30% are to journal papers, and around 8% are to books. Among the other types of documents, standards and RFC correspond to 3% of the references, technical and other reports correspond to 4%, and other Web references to 3%. Among the documents cited at least 10 times by the 2006 ACM papers, 41% are conferences papers, 37% are books, and 16% are journal papers.

0.012803378 = product of:
  0.064016886 = sum of:
    0.064016886 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064016886 = score(doc=1249,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study analyzes coauthorship patterns in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) for the period 2000 to 2010. The basis for the analysis is the Flemish Academic Bibliographic Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities (VABB-SHW), a comprehensive bibliographic database of peer-reviewed publications in the SSH by researchers affiliated with Flemish universities. Combining data on journal articles and book chapters, our findings indicate that collaborative publishing in the SSH is increasing, though considerable differences between disciplines remain. Conversely, we did observe a sharp decline in single-author publishing. We further demonstrate that coauthored SSH articles in journals indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) generally have a higher (and growing) number of coauthors than do either those in non-WoS journals or book chapters. This illustrates the need to include non-WoS data and book chapters when studying coauthorship in the SSH.

0.012803378 = product of:
  0.064016886 = sum of:
    0.064016886 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064016886 = score(doc=2742,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article describes the results of our analysis of the data from the CiteSeer digital library. First, we examined the data from the point of view of source top-level Internet domains from which the data were collected. Second, we measured country shares in publications indexed by CiteSeer and compared them to those based on mainstream bibliographic data from the Web of Science and Scopus. And third, we concentrated on analyzing publications and their citations aggregated by countries. This way, we generated rankings of the most influential countries in computer science using several non-recursive as well as recursive methods such as citation counts or PageRank. We conclude that even if East Asian countries are underrepresented in CiteSeer, its data may well be used along with other conventional bibliographic databases for comparing the computer science research productivity and performance of countries.

0.012523659 = product of:
  0.06261829 = sum of:
    0.06261829 = weight(_text_:line in 6026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06261829 = score(doc=6026,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25266227 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.24783395 = fieldWeight in 6026, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6026)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The British controversy over the validity of Urquhart's and Garfield's Laws during the 1970s constitutes an important episode in the formulation of the probability structure of human knowledge. This controversy took place within the historical context of the convergence of two scientific revolutions-the bibliometric and the biometric-that had been launched in Britain. The preceding decades had witnessed major breakthroughs in understanding the probability distributions underlying the use of human knowledge. Two of the most important of these breakthroughs were the laws posited by Donald J. Urquhart and Eugene Garfield, who played major roles in establishing the institutional bases of the bibliometric revolution. For his part, Urquhart began his realization of S. C. Bradford's concept of a national science library by analyzing the borrowing of journals on interlibrary loan from the Science Museum Library in 1956. He found that 10% of the journals accounted for 80% of the loans and formulated Urquhart's Law, by which the interlibrary use of a journal is a measure of its total use. This law underlay the operations of the National Lending Library for Science and Technology (NLLST), which Urquhart founded. The NLLST became the British Library Lending Division (BLLD) and ultimately the British Library Document Supply Centre (BLDSC). In contrast, Garfield did a study of 1969 journal citations as part of the process of creating the Science Citation Index (SCI), formulating his Law of Concentration, by which the bulk of the information needs in science can be satisfied by a relatively small, multidisciplinary core of journals. This law became the operational principle of the Institute for Scientif ic Information created by Garfield. A study at the BLLD under Urquhart's successor, Maurice B. Line, found low correlations of NLLST use with SCI citations, and publication of this study started a major controversy, during which both laws were called into question. The study was based on the faulty use of the Spearman rank correlation coefficient, and the controversy over it was instrumental in causing B. C. Brookes to investigate bibliometric laws as probabilistic phenomena and begin to link the bibliometric with the biometric revolution. This paper concludes with a resolution of the controversy by means of a statistical technique that incorporates Brookes' criticism of the Spearman rank-correlation method and demonstrates the mutual supportiveness of the two laws

0.012523659 = product of:
  0.06261829 = sum of:
    0.06261829 = weight(_text_:line in 4719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06261829 = score(doc=4719,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25266227 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.24783395 = fieldWeight in 4719, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4719)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

During the past decades, journal impact data obtained from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) have gained relevance in library management, research management and research evaluation. Hence, both information scientists and bibliometricians share the responsibility towards the users of the JCR to analyse the reliability and validity of its measures thoroughly, to indicate pitfalls and to suggest possible improvements. In this article, ageing patterns are examined in 'formal' use or impact of all scientific journals processed for the Science Citation Index (SCI) during 1981-1995. A new classification system of journals in terms of their ageing characteristics is introduced. This system has been applied to as many as 3,098 journals covered by the Science Citation Index. Following an earlier suggestion by Glnzel and Schoepflin, a maturing and a decline phase are distinguished. From an analysis across all subfields it has been concluded that ageing characteristics are primarily specific to the individual journal rather than to the subfield, while the distribution of journals in terms of slowly or rapidly maturing or declining types is specific to the subfield. It is shown that the cited half life (CHL), printed in the JCR, is an inappropriate measure of decline of journal impact. Following earlier work by Line and others, a more adequate parameter of decline is calculated taking into account the size of annual volumes during a range of fifteen years. For 76 per cent of SCI journals the relative difference between this new parameter and the ISI CHL exceeds 5 per cent. The current JCR journal impact factor is proven to be biased towards journals revealing a rapid maturing and decline in impact. Therefore, a longer term impact factor is proposed, as well as a normalised impact statistic, taking into account citation characteristics of the research subfield covered by a journal and the type of documents published in it. When these new measures are combined with the proposed ageing classification system, they provide a significantly improved picture of a journal's impact to that obtained from the JCR.

0.012523659 = product of:
  0.06261829 = sum of:
    0.06261829 = weight(_text_:line in 820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06261829 = score(doc=820,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25266227 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.24783395 = fieldWeight in 820, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=820)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper describes a general methodology for developing bibliometric performance indicators. Such a description provides a framework or paradigm for application-oriented research in the field of evaluative quantitative science and technology studies, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. It is based on our study of scholarly output in the field of Law at the four major universities in Flanders, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. The study illustrates that bibliometrics is much more than conducting citation analyses based on the indexes produced by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), since citation data do not play a role in the study. Interaction with scholars in the fields under consideration and openness in the presentation of the quantitative outcomes are the basic features of the methodology. Bibliometrics should be used as an instrument to create a mirror. While not a direct reflection, this study provides a thorough analysis of how scholars in the humanities and social sciences structure their activities and their research output. This structure can be examined empirically from the point of view of its consistency and the degree of consensus among scholars. Relevant issues can be raised that are worth considering in more detail in followup studies, and conclusions from our empirical materials may illuminate such issues. We argue that the principal aim of the development and application of bibliometric indicators is to stimulate a debate among scholars in the field under investigation on the nature of scholarly quality, its principal dimensions, and operationalizations. This aim provides a criterion of "productivity" of the development process. We further contend that librarians are not infrequently requested to provide assistance in collecting data related to research performance assessments, and that the methodology described in the paper aims at offering a general framework for such activities, and can be used by librarians as a line of action whenever they become involved.

0.012071139 = product of:
  0.060355693 = sum of:
    0.060355693 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060355693 = score(doc=6691,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17540175 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045055166 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 6691, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6691)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Investigates the possibilities and limitations of online citation analysis. The Dialog online processing tools RANK, MAP and TARGET are used to perform analysis of citations to and from isolated sets of documents as well as to carry out diachrone journal analysis. Discusses the implications of this analysis on the journal impact factors of ISI journals. Suggests that by the combined application of RANK and TARGET, a hitherto overlooked possibility of the online analysis of bibliographic coupling and mapping of scientific fields has been revealed