Search (478 results, page 3 of 24)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Craven, T.C.: Determining authorship of Web pages (2006) 0.02 
    0.021341817 = product of:
  0.07113939 = sum of:
    0.02005229 = product of:
      0.04010458 = sum of:
        0.04010458 = weight(_text_:web in 1498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04010458 = score(doc=1498,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 1498, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1498)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.04010458 = weight(_text_:web in 1498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04010458 = score(doc=1498,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 1498, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1498)
    0.010982524 = product of:
      0.03294757 = sum of:
        0.03294757 = weight(_text_:29 in 1498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03294757 = score(doc=1498,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12110529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1498, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1498)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    Assignability of authors to Web pages using either normal browsing procedures or browsing assisted by simple automatic extraction was investigated. Candidate strings for 1000 pages were extracted automatically from title elements, meta-tags, and address-like and copyright-like passages; 539 of the pages produced at least one candidate: 310 candidates from titles, 66 from meta-tags, 91 from address-like passages, and 259 from copyright-like passages. An assistant attempted to identify personal authors for 943 pages by examining the pages themselves and related pages; this added 90 pages with authors to the pages from which no candidate strings were extracted. Specific problems are noted and some refinements to the extraction methods are suggested.
    Date
    29. 2.2008 17:17:33
  2. Bornmann, L.; Leydesdorff, L.: Which cities produce more excellent papers than can be expected? : a new mapping approach, using Google Maps, based on statistical significance testing (2011) 0.02 
    0.021053402 = product of:
  0.070178 = sum of:
    0.012153522 = product of:
      0.024307044 = sum of:
        0.024307044 = weight(_text_:web in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024307044 = score(doc=4767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4767, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.033717435 = weight(_text_:world in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033717435 = score(doc=4767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1323281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 4767, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4767)
    0.024307044 = weight(_text_:web in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024307044 = score(doc=4767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4767, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4767)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    The methods presented in this paper allow for a statistical analysis revealing centers of excellence around the world using programs that are freely available. Based on Web of Science data (a fee-based database), field-specific excellence can be identified in cities where highly cited papers were published more frequently than can be expected. Compared to the mapping approaches published hitherto, our approach is more analytically oriented by allowing the assessment of an observed number of excellent papers for a city against the expected number. Top performers in output are cities in which authors are located who publish a statistically significant higher number of highly cited papers than can be expected for these cities. As sample data for physics, chemistry, and psychology show, these cities do not necessarily have a high output of highly cited papers.
  3. Winnink, J.J.; Tijssen, R.J.W.; Raan, F.J. van: Theory-changing breakthroughs in science : the impact of research teamwork on scientific discoveries (2016) 0.02 
    0.021053402 = product of:
  0.070178 = sum of:
    0.012153522 = product of:
      0.024307044 = sum of:
        0.024307044 = weight(_text_:web in 2898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024307044 = score(doc=2898,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2898, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2898)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.033717435 = weight(_text_:world in 2898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033717435 = score(doc=2898,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1323281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 2898, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2898)
    0.024307044 = weight(_text_:web in 2898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024307044 = score(doc=2898,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2898, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2898)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    We have developed and tested an evidence-based method for early-stage identification of scientific discoveries. Scholarly publications are analyzed to track and trace breakthrough processes as well as their impact on world science. The focus in this study is on the incremental discovery of the ubiquitin-mediated proteolytic system in the late 1970s by a small international team of collaborating researchers. Analysis of their groundbreaking research articles, all produced within a relatively short period of time, and the network of citing articles shows the cumulative effects of the intense collaboration within a small group of researchers working on the same subject. Using bibliographic data from the Web of Science database and the PATSTAT patents database in combination with expert opinions shows that these discoveries accumulated into a new technology. These first findings suggest that potential breakthrough discoveries can be identified at a relatively early stage by careful analysis of publication and citation patterns.
  4. Heneberg, P.: Parallel worlds of citable documents and others : inflated commissioned opinion articles enhance scientometric indicators (2014) 0.02 
    0.021036057 = product of:
  0.070120186 = sum of:
    0.010127936 = product of:
      0.020255871 = sum of:
        0.020255871 = weight(_text_:web in 1227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020255871 = score(doc=1227,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1227, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.039736375 = weight(_text_:world in 1227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039736375 = score(doc=1227,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1323281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.30028677 = fieldWeight in 1227, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1227)
    0.020255871 = weight(_text_:web in 1227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020255871 = score(doc=1227,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1227, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1227)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    Scientometric indicators influence the standing of journals among peers, thus affecting decisions regarding manuscript submissions, scholars' careers, and funding. Here we hypothesize that impact-factor boosting (unethical behavior documented previously in several underperforming journals) should not be considered as exceptional, but that it affects even the top-tier journals. We performed a citation analysis of documents recently published in 11 prominent general science and biomedical journals. In these journals, only 12 to 79% of what they publish was considered original research, whereas editorial materials alone constituted 11 to 44% of the total document types published. Citations to commissioned opinion articles comprised 3 to 15% of the total citations to the journals within 3 postpublication years, with even a higher share occurring during the first postpublication year. An additional 4 to 15% of the citations were received by the journals from commissioned opinion articles published in other journals. Combined, the parallel world of uncitable documents was responsible for up to 30% of the total citations to the top-tier journals, with the highest values found for medical science journals (New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and the Lancet) and lower values found for the Science, Nature, and Cell series journals. Self-citations to some of the top-tier journals reach values higher than the total citation counts accumulated by papers in most of the Web of Science-indexed journals. Most of the self-citations were generated by commissioned opinion articles. The parallel world of supposedly uncitable documents flourishes and severely distorts the commonly used scientometric indicators.
  5. Bar-Ilan, J.: ¬The Web as an information source on informetrics? : A content analysis (2000) 0.02 
    0.02062521 = product of:
  0.10312605 = sum of:
    0.03437535 = product of:
      0.0687507 = sum of:
        0.0687507 = weight(_text_:web in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0687507 = score(doc=4587,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 4587, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4587)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0687507 = weight(_text_:web in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0687507 = score(doc=4587,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 4587, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4587)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    This article addresses the question of whether the Web can serve as an information source for research. Specifically, it analyzes by way of content analysis the Web pages retrieved by the major search engines on a particular date (June 7, 1998), as a result of the query 'informetrics OR informetric'. In 807 out of the 942 retrieved pages, the search terms were mentioned in the context of information science. Over 70% of the pages contained only indirect information on the topic, in the form of hypertext links and bibliographical references without annotation. The bibliographical references extracted from the Web pages were analyzed, and lists of most productive authors, most cited authors, works, and sources were compiled. The list of reference obtained from the Web was also compared to data retrieved from commercial databases. For most cases, the list of references extracted from the Web outperformed the commercial, bibliographic databases. The results of these comparisons indicate that valuable, freely available data is hidden in the Web waiting to be extracted from the millions of Web pages
  6. McCain, K.W.: Eponymy and obliteration by incorporation : The case of the "Nash Equilibrium" (2011) 0.02 
    0.020316184 = product of:
  0.06772061 = sum of:
    0.010127936 = product of:
      0.020255871 = sum of:
        0.020255871 = weight(_text_:web in 4479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020255871 = score(doc=4479,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4479, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.037336797 = weight(_text_:wide in 4479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037336797 = score(doc=4479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15254007 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 4479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4479)
    0.020255871 = weight(_text_:web in 4479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020255871 = score(doc=4479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4479)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    In order to examine the phenomena of eponymy and Obliteration by Incorporation at both the aggregate and individual subject level, the literature relating to the game-theoretic concept of the Nash Equilibrium was studied over the period 1950-2008. Almost 5,300 bibliographic database records for publications explicitly citing at least one of two papers by John Nash and/or using the phrase "Nash Equilibrium/Nash Equilibria" were retrieved from the Web of Science and various subject-related databases. Breadth of influence is demonstrated by the wide variety of subject areas in which Nash Equilibrium-related publications occur, including in the natural and social sciences, humanities, law, and medicine. Fifty percent of all items have been published since 2002, suggesting that Nash's papers have experienced "delayed recognition." A degree of Obliteration by Incorporation is observed in that implicit citations (use of the phrase without citation) increased over the time period studied, although the proportion of all citations that are implicit has remained relatively stable during the most recent decade with an annual rate of between 60% and 70%; subject areas vary in their level of obliteration.
  7. Thelwall, M.: Conceptualizing documentation on the Web : an evaluation of different heuristic-based models for counting links between university Web sites (2002) 0.02 
    0.020154338 = product of:
  0.10077169 = sum of:
    0.033590563 = product of:
      0.067181125 = sum of:
        0.067181125 = weight(_text_:web in 978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067181125 = score(doc=978,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.59793836 = fieldWeight in 978, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=978)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.067181125 = weight(_text_:web in 978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067181125 = score(doc=978,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.59793836 = fieldWeight in 978, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=978)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    All known previous Web link studies have used the Web page as the primary indivisible source document for counting purposes. Arguments are presented to explain why this is not necessarily optimal and why other alternatives have the potential to produce better results. This is despite the fact that individual Web files are often the only choice if search engines are used for raw data and are the easiest basic Web unit to identify. The central issue is of defining the Web "document": that which should comprise the single indissoluble unit of coherent material. Three alternative heuristics are defined for the educational arena based upon the directory, the domain and the whole university site. These are then compared by implementing them an a set of 108 UK university institutional Web sites under the assumption that a more effective heuristic will tend to produce results that correlate more highly with institutional research productivity. It was discovered that the domain and directory models were able to successfully reduce the impact of anomalous linking behavior between pairs of Web sites, with the latter being the method of choice. Reasons are then given as to why a document model an its own cannot eliminate all anomalies in Web linking behavior. Finally, the results from all models give a clear confirmation of the very strong association between the research productivity of a UK university and the number of incoming links from its peers' Web sites.
  8. Tscherteu, G.; Langreiter, C.: Explorative Netzwerkanalyse im Living Web (2009) 0.02 
    0.019445635 = product of:
  0.09722818 = sum of:
    0.032409392 = product of:
      0.064818785 = sum of:
        0.064818785 = weight(_text_:web in 4870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064818785 = score(doc=4870,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 4870, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4870)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.064818785 = weight(_text_:web in 4870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064818785 = score(doc=4870,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 4870, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4870)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Object
    Web 2.0
    Source
    Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini
  9. Vaughan, L.; Shaw, D.: Web citation data for impact assessment : a comparison of four science disciplines (2005) 0.02 
    0.019216407 = product of:
  0.09608203 = sum of:
    0.032027345 = product of:
      0.06405469 = sum of:
        0.06405469 = weight(_text_:web in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06405469 = score(doc=3880,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 3880, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3880)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.06405469 = weight(_text_:web in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06405469 = score(doc=3880,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 3880, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3880)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    The number and type of Web citations to journal articles in four areas of science are examined: biology, genetics, medicine, and multidisciplinary sciences. For a sample of 5,972 articles published in 114 journals, the median Web citation counts per journal article range from 6.2 in medicine to 10.4 in genetics. About 30% of Web citations in each area indicate intellectual impact (citations from articles or class readings, in contrast to citations from bibliographic services or the author's or journal's home page). Journals receiving more Web citations also have higher percentages of citations indicating intellectual impact. There is significant correlation between the number of citations reported in the databases from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now Thomson Scientific) and the number of citations retrieved using the Google search engine (Web citations). The correlation is much weaker for journals published outside the United Kingdom or United States and for multidisciplinary journals. Web citation numbers are higher than ISI citation counts, suggesting that Web searches might be conducted for an earlier or a more fine-grained assessment of an article's impact. The Web-evident impact of non-UK/USA publications might provide a balance to the geographic or cultural biases observed in ISI's data, although the stability of Web citation counts is debatable.
  10. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations : a multi-discipline exploratory analysis (2007) 0.02 
    0.019216407 = product of:
  0.09608203 = sum of:
    0.032027345 = product of:
      0.06405469 = sum of:
        0.06405469 = weight(_text_:web in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06405469 = score(doc=337,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.06405469 = weight(_text_:web in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06405469 = score(doc=337,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    We use a new data gathering method, "Web/URL citation," Web/URL and Google Scholar to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, and education) based upon a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 open access (OA) journals published in 2001. A Web/URL citation of an online journal article is a Web mention of its title, URL, or both. For each discipline, except psychology, we found significant correlations between Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI, here: ISI) citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations. Google Scholar citations correlated more highly with ISI citations than did Google Web/URL citations, indicating that the Web/URL method measures a broader type of citation phenomenon. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines, suggesting that Google Scholar is more comprehensive for social sciences and perhaps also when conference articles are valued and published online. We also found large disciplinary differences in the percentage overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citation sources. Finally, although we found many significant trends, there were also numerous exceptions, suggesting that replacing traditional citation sources with the Web or Google Scholar for research impact calculations would be problematic.
  11. Huang, M.-H.; Wu, L.-L.; Wu, Y.-C.: ¬A study of research collaboration in the pre-web and post-web stages : a coauthorship analysis of the information systems discipline (2015) 0.02 
    0.019216407 = product of:
  0.09608203 = sum of:
    0.032027345 = product of:
      0.06405469 = sum of:
        0.06405469 = weight(_text_:web in 1729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06405469 = score(doc=1729,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 1729, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1729)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.06405469 = weight(_text_:web in 1729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06405469 = score(doc=1729,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 1729, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1729)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    To explore the possible facilitative role of the Internet in the process of research collaboration, this study endeavored to systematically compare the phenomenon of co-authorship and the impacts of co-authorship between pre-web and post-web stages in the field of information systems. Three hypotheses were proposed in this study. First, research collaboration increases in the post-web stage relative to the pre-web stage. Second, research collaboration is positively related to research impact, operationally defined as the number of citations. Lastly, the positive relationship between research collaboration and research impact is stronger in the post-web stage than that in the pre-web stage. Articles published in the field of information systems in both time periods were collected to test the hypotheses. The empirical results strongly support H1 and H2, showing that co-authorship increases in the post-web stage, and positively correlates with citations received by information systems articles. The positive effects of interdisciplinary collaborations and collaborations among multiple authors are enhanced in the post-web stage, but such enhancement is not found for international collaboration. H3 is partially supported.
  12. Zhang, Y.: ¬The effect of open access on citation impact : a comparison study based on Web citation analysis (2006) 0.02 
    0.019216407 = product of:
  0.09608203 = sum of:
    0.032027345 = product of:
      0.06405469 = sum of:
        0.06405469 = weight(_text_:web in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06405469 = score(doc=5071,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 5071, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5071)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.06405469 = weight(_text_:web in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06405469 = score(doc=5071,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 5071, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5071)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    The academic impact advantage of Open Access (OA) is a prominent topic of debate in the library and publishing communities. Web citations have been proposed as comparable to, even replacements for, bibliographic citations in assessing the academic impact of journals. In our study, we compare Web citations to articles in an OA journal, the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC), and a traditional access journal, New Media & Society (NMS), in the communication discipline. Web citation counts for JCMC are significantly higher than those for NMS. Furthermore, JCMC receives significantly higher Web citations from the formal scholarly publications posted on the Web than NMS does. The types of Web citations for journal articles were also examined. In the Web context, the impact of a journal can be assessed using more than one type of source: citations from scholarly articles, teaching materials and non-authoritative documents. The OA journal has higher percentages of citations from the third type, which suggests that, in addition to the research community, the impact advantage of open access is also detectable among ordinary users participating in Web-based academic communication. Moreover, our study also proves that the OA journal has impact advantage in developing countries. Compared with NMS, JCMC has more Web citations from developing countries.
  13. Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015) 0.02 
    0.019086158 = product of:
  0.06362052 = sum of:
    0.0175421 = product of:
      0.0350842 = sum of:
        0.0350842 = weight(_text_:web in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0350842 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0350842 = weight(_text_:web in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0350842 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.010994226 = product of:
      0.032982677 = sum of:
        0.032982677 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032982677 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12055935 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    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
  14. Ohly, P.: Dimensions of globality : a bibliometric analysis (2016) 0.02 
    0.018987319 = product of:
  0.09493659 = sum of:
    0.04495658 = weight(_text_:world in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04495658 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1323281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.33973572 = fieldWeight in 4942, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4942)
    0.049980007 = product of:
      0.07497001 = sum of:
        0.037654366 = weight(_text_:29 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037654366 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12110529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 4942, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4942)
        0.03731564 = weight(_text_:22 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03731564 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12055935 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4942, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4942)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Date
    20. 1.2019 11:22:31
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei
  15. Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020) 0.02 
    0.018486394 = product of:
  0.061621312 = sum of:
    0.010127936 = product of:
      0.020255871 = sum of:
        0.020255871 = weight(_text_:web in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020255871 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.020255871 = weight(_text_:web in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020255871 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
    0.031237505 = product of:
      0.046856258 = sum of:
        0.023533981 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023533981 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12110529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
        0.023322277 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023322277 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12055935 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  16. Sanderson, M.: Revisiting h measured on UK LIS and IR academics (2008) 0.02 
    0.018292986 = product of:
  0.060976617 = sum of:
    0.017187675 = product of:
      0.03437535 = sum of:
        0.03437535 = weight(_text_:web in 1867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03437535 = score(doc=1867,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 1867, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1867)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.03437535 = weight(_text_:web in 1867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03437535 = score(doc=1867,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 1867, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1867)
    0.0094135925 = product of:
      0.028240776 = sum of:
        0.028240776 = weight(_text_:29 in 1867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028240776 = score(doc=1867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12110529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1867, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1867)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    A brief communication appearing in this journal ranked UK-based LIS and (some) IR academics by their h-index using data derived from the Thomson ISI Web of Science(TM) (WoS). In this brief communication, the same academics were re-ranked, using other popular citation databases. It was found that for academics who publish more in computer science forums, their h was significantly different due to highly cited papers missed by WoS; consequently, their rank changed substantially. The study was widened to a broader set of UK-based LIS and IR academics in which results showed similar statistically significant differences. A variant of h, hmx, was introduced that allowed a ranking of the academics using all citation databases together.
    Date
    1. 6.2008 12:29:25
    Object
    Web of Science
  17. Mingers, J.; Macri, F.; Petrovici, D.: Using the h-index to measure the quality of journals in the field of business and management (2012) 0.02 
    0.018292986 = product of:
  0.060976617 = sum of:
    0.017187675 = product of:
      0.03437535 = sum of:
        0.03437535 = weight(_text_:web in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03437535 = score(doc=2741,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.03437535 = weight(_text_:web in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03437535 = score(doc=2741,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
    0.0094135925 = product of:
      0.028240776 = sum of:
        0.028240776 = weight(_text_:29 in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028240776 = score(doc=2741,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12110529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    This paper considers the use of the h-index as a measure of a journal's research quality and contribution. We study a sample of 455 journals in business and management all of which are included in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) and the Association of Business School's peer review journal ranking list. The h-index is compared with both the traditional impact factors, and with the peer review judgements. We also consider two sources of citation data - the WoS itself and Google Scholar. The conclusions are that the h-index is preferable to the impact factor for a variety of reasons, especially the selective coverage of the impact factor and the fact that it disadvantages journals that publish many papers. Google Scholar is also preferred to WoS as a data source. However, the paper notes that it is not sufficient to use any single metric to properly evaluate research achievements.
    Date
    29. 1.2016 19:00:16
    Object
    Web of Science
  18. Zhang, Y.; Jansen, B.J.; Spink, A.: Identification of factors predicting clickthrough in Web searching using neural network analysis (2009) 0.02 
    0.018267581 = product of:
  0.060891934 = sum of:
    0.017187675 = product of:
      0.03437535 = sum of:
        0.03437535 = weight(_text_:web in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03437535 = score(doc=2742,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.03437535 = weight(_text_:web in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03437535 = score(doc=2742,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
    0.009328911 = product of:
      0.027986731 = sum of:
        0.027986731 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027986731 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12055935 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    In this research, we aim to identify factors that significantly affect the clickthrough of Web searchers. Our underlying goal is determine more efficient methods to optimize the clickthrough rate. We devise a clickthrough metric for measuring customer satisfaction of search engine results using the number of links visited, number of queries a user submits, and rank of clicked links. We use a neural network to detect the significant influence of searching characteristics on future user clickthrough. Our results show that high occurrences of query reformulation, lengthy searching duration, longer query length, and the higher ranking of prior clicked links correlate positively with future clickthrough. We provide recommendations for leveraging these findings for improving the performance of search engine retrieval and result ranking, along with implications for search engine marketing.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:49:11
  19. Thelwall, M.; Vaughan, L.; Björneborn, L.: Webometrics (2004) 0.02 
    0.018230284 = product of:
  0.09115142 = sum of:
    0.030383805 = product of:
      0.06076761 = sum of:
        0.06076761 = weight(_text_:web in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06076761 = score(doc=4279,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.5408555 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.06076761 = weight(_text_:web in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06076761 = score(doc=4279,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.5408555 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.
  20. Archambault, E.; Campbell, D; Gingras, Y.; Larivière, V.: Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus (2009) 0.02 
    0.018141288 = product of:
  0.060470957 = sum of:
    0.0175421 = product of:
      0.0350842 = sum of:
        0.0350842 = weight(_text_:web in 2933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0350842 = score(doc=2933,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2933, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2933)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0350842 = weight(_text_:web in 2933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0350842 = score(doc=2933,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2933, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2933)
    0.00784466 = product of:
      0.023533981 = sum of:
        0.023533981 = weight(_text_:29 in 2933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023533981 = score(doc=2933,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12110529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2933, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2933)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    For more than 40 years, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now part of Thomson Reuters) produced the only available bibliographic databases from which bibliometricians could compile large-scale bibliometric indicators. ISI's citation indexes, now regrouped under the Web of Science (WoS), were the major sources of bibliometric data until 2004, when Scopus was launched by the publisher Reed Elsevier. For those who perform bibliometric analyses and comparisons of countries or institutions, the existence of these two major databases raises the important question of the comparability and stability of statistics obtained from different data sources. This paper uses macrolevel bibliometric indicators to compare results obtained from the WoS and Scopus. It shows that the correlations between the measures obtained with both databases for the number of papers and the number of citations received by countries, as well as for their ranks, are extremely high. There is also a very high correlation when countries' papers are broken down by field. The paper thus provides evidence that indicators of scientific production and citations at the country level are stable and largely independent of the database.
    Date
    19. 7.2009 12:20:29
    Object
    Web of Science

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 446
  • d 28
  • ro 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 463
  • el 10
  • m 9
  • s 3
  • r 2
  • b 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications