Search (155 results, page 1 of 8)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Campanario, J.M.: Large increases and decreases in journal impact factors in only one year : the effect of journal self-citations (2011) 0.06 
    0.05718861 = product of:
  0.17156583 = sum of:
    0.17156583 = sum of:
      0.12894623 = weight(_text_:j.m in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12894623 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.27372277 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044938263 = queryNorm
          0.4710833 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
      0.0426196 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0426196 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15736614 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044938263 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:53:00
  2. Ziman, J.M.: ¬The proliferation of scientific literature : a natural process (1980) 0.05 
    0.049122375 = product of:
  0.14736712 = sum of:
    0.14736712 = product of:
      0.29473424 = sum of:
        0.29473424 = weight(_text_:j.m in 1079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.29473424 = score(doc=1079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27372277 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044938263 = queryNorm
            1.0767618 = fieldWeight in 1079, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  3. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009) 0.05 
    0.045052245 = product of:
  0.13515674 = sum of:
    0.13515674 = sum of:
      0.09210444 = weight(_text_:j.m in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09210444 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.27372277 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044938263 = queryNorm
          0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.043052297 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043052297 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15736614 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044938263 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, 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=2734)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 12:43:51
  4. Stringer, M.J.; Sales-Pardo, M.; Nunes Amaral, L.A.: Statistical validation of a global model for the distribution of the ultimate number of citations accrued by papers published in a scientific journal (2010) 0.04 
    0.039542988 = product of:
  0.11862896 = sum of:
    0.11862896 = product of:
      0.23725791 = sum of:
        0.23725791 = weight(_text_:nunes in 3583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23725791 = score(doc=3583,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40104246 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.924298 = idf(docFreq=15, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044938263 = queryNorm
            0.591603 = fieldWeight in 3583, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.924298 = idf(docFreq=15, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3583)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  5. Campanario, J.M.: Distribution of ranks of articles and citations in journals (2010) 0.03 
    0.03070148 = product of:
  0.09210444 = sum of:
    0.09210444 = product of:
      0.18420888 = sum of:
        0.18420888 = weight(_text_:j.m in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18420888 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27372277 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044938263 = queryNorm
            0.67297614 = fieldWeight in 3340, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3340)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  6. Martín-Martín, A.; Ayllón, J.M.; López-Cózar, E.D.; Orduna-Malea, E.: Nature's top 100 Re-revisited (2015) 0.03 
    0.03070148 = product of:
  0.09210444 = sum of:
    0.09210444 = product of:
      0.18420888 = sum of:
        0.18420888 = weight(_text_:j.m in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18420888 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27372277 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044938263 = queryNorm
            0.67297614 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  7. Campanario, J.M.: Using 'Citation Classics' to study the incidence of serendipity in scientific discovery (1996) 0.02 
    0.024561187 = product of:
  0.07368356 = sum of:
    0.07368356 = product of:
      0.14736712 = sum of:
        0.14736712 = weight(_text_:j.m in 6693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14736712 = score(doc=6693,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27372277 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044938263 = queryNorm
            0.5383809 = fieldWeight in 6693, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6693)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  8. Crawford, S.Y.; Hurd, J.M.; Weller, A.C.: From print to electronic : the transformation of scientific communication (1997) 0.02 
    0.02149104 = product of:
  0.064473115 = sum of:
    0.064473115 = product of:
      0.12894623 = sum of:
        0.12894623 = weight(_text_:j.m in 2368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12894623 = score(doc=2368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27372277 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044938263 = queryNorm
            0.4710833 = fieldWeight in 2368, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  9. Ahlgren, P.; Järvelin, K.: Measuring impact of twelve information scientists using the DCI index (2010) 0.02 
    0.021139925 = product of:
  0.063419774 = sum of:
    0.063419774 = product of:
      0.19025931 = sum of:
        0.19025931 = weight(_text_:author's in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19025931 = score(doc=3593,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.30199203 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044938263 = queryNorm
            0.63001436 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The Discounted Cumulated Impact (DCI) index has recently been proposed for research evaluation. In the present work an earlier dataset by Cronin and Meho (2007) is reanalyzed, with the aim of exemplifying the salient features of the DCI index. We apply the index on, and compare our results to, the outcomes of the Cronin-Meho (2007) study. Both authors and their top publications are used as units of analysis, which suggests that, by adjusting the parameters of evaluation according to the needs of research evaluation, the DCI index delivers data on an author's (or publication's) lifetime impact or current impact at the time of evaluation on an author's (or publication's) capability of inviting citations from highly cited later publications as an indication of impact, and on the relative impact across a set of authors (or publications) over their lifetime or currently.
  10. Danell, R.: Can the quality of scientific work be predicted using information on the author's track record? (2011) 0.02 
    0.021139925 = product of:
  0.063419774 = sum of:
    0.063419774 = product of:
      0.19025931 = sum of:
        0.19025931 = weight(_text_:author's in 4131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19025931 = score(doc=4131,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.30199203 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044938263 = queryNorm
            0.63001436 = fieldWeight in 4131, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4131)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Many countries are moving towards research policies that emphasize excellence; consequently; they develop evaluation systems to identify universities, research groups, and researchers that can be said to be "excellent." Such active research policy strategies, in which evaluations are used to concentrate resources, are based on an unsubstantiated assumption that researchers' track records are indicative of their future research performance. In this study, information on authors' track records (previous publication volume and previous citation rate) is used to predict the impact of their articles. The study concludes that, to a certain degree, the impact of scientific work can be predicted using information on how often an author's previous publications have been cited. The relationship between past performance and the citation rate of articles is strongest at the high end of the citation distribution. The implications of these results are discussed in the context of a cumulative advantage process.
  11. González, L.; Campanario, J.M.: Structure of the impact factor of journals included in the Social Sciences Citation Index : citations from documents labeled "Editorial Material" (2007) 0.02 
    0.01842089 = product of:
  0.05526267 = sum of:
    0.05526267 = product of:
      0.11052534 = sum of:
        0.11052534 = weight(_text_:j.m in 75) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11052534 = score(doc=75,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27372277 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044938263 = queryNorm
            0.4037857 = fieldWeight in 75, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=75)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  12. Campanario, J.M.; Acedo, E.: Rejecting highly cited papers : the views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists (2007) 0.02 
    0.01842089 = product of:
  0.05526267 = sum of:
    0.05526267 = product of:
      0.11052534 = sum of:
        0.11052534 = weight(_text_:j.m in 273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11052534 = score(doc=273,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27372277 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044938263 = queryNorm
            0.4037857 = fieldWeight in 273, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=273)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  13. Luna-Morales, M.E.; Collazo-Reyes, F.; Russell, J.M.; Ángel Pérez-Angón, M.A.: Early patterns of scientific production by Mexican researchers in mainstream journals, 1900-1950 (2009) 0.02 
    0.01842089 = product of:
  0.05526267 = sum of:
    0.05526267 = product of:
      0.11052534 = sum of:
        0.11052534 = weight(_text_:j.m in 2934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11052534 = score(doc=2934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27372277 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044938263 = queryNorm
            0.4037857 = fieldWeight in 2934, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2934)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  14. Campanario, J.M.: Self-citations that contribute to the journal impact factor : an investment-benefit-yield analysis (2010) 0.02 
    0.01842089 = product of:
  0.05526267 = sum of:
    0.05526267 = product of:
      0.11052534 = sum of:
        0.11052534 = weight(_text_:j.m in 4124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11052534 = score(doc=4124,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27372277 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044938263 = queryNorm
            0.4037857 = fieldWeight in 4124, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  15. Kim, Y.; Stanton, J.M.: Institutional and individual factors affecting scientists' data-sharing behaviors : a multilevel analysis (2016) 0.02 
    0.01842089 = product of:
  0.05526267 = sum of:
    0.05526267 = product of:
      0.11052534 = sum of:
        0.11052534 = weight(_text_:j.m in 2844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11052534 = score(doc=2844,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27372277 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044938263 = queryNorm
            0.4037857 = fieldWeight in 2844, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2844)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  16. Hernandez-Garcia, Y.I.; Chamizo, J.A.; Kleiche-Dray, M.; Russell, J.M.: ¬The scientific impact of mexican steroid research 1935-1965 : a bibliometric and historiographic analysis (2016) 0.02 
    0.01842089 = product of:
  0.05526267 = sum of:
    0.05526267 = product of:
      0.11052534 = sum of:
        0.11052534 = weight(_text_:j.m in 2901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11052534 = score(doc=2901,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27372277 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044938263 = queryNorm
            0.4037857 = fieldWeight in 2901, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2901)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  17. Rousseau, R.; Zuccala, A.: ¬A classification of author co-citations : definitions and search strategies (2004) 0.02 
    0.017616604 = product of:
  0.05284981 = sum of:
    0.05284981 = product of:
      0.15854943 = sum of:
        0.15854943 = weight(_text_:author's in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15854943 = score(doc=2266,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.30199203 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044938263 = queryNorm
            0.52501196 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The term author co-citation is defined and classified according to four distinct forms: the pure first-author co-citation, the pure author co-citation, the general author co-citation, and the special co-authorlco-citation. Each form can be used to obtain one count in an author co-citation study, based an a binary counting rule, which either recognizes the co-citedness of two authors in a given reference list (1) or does not (0). Most studies using author co-citations have relied solely an first-author cocitation counts as evidence of an author's oeuvre or body of work contributed to a research field. In this article, we argue that an author's contribution to a selected field of study should not be limited, but should be based an his/her complete list of publications, regardless of author ranking. We discuss the implications associated with using each co-citation form and show where simple first-author co-citations fit within our classification scheme. Examples are given to substantiate each author co-citation form defined in our classification, including a set of sample Dialog(TM) searches using references extracted from the SciSearch database.
  18. Hyland, K.: Self-citation and self-reference : credibility and promotion in academic publication (2003) 0.02 
    0.017616604 = product of:
  0.05284981 = sum of:
    0.05284981 = product of:
      0.15854943 = sum of:
        0.15854943 = weight(_text_:author's in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15854943 = score(doc=5156,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.30199203 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044938263 = queryNorm
            0.52501196 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Hyland examines self referencing practices by analyzing their textual uses in 240 randomly chosen research papers and 800 abstracts across 80 expert selected journals from 1997 and 1998 in eight disciplines, as a key to their author's assumptions as to their own role in the research process and to the practices of their disciplines. Scanned texts produced a corpus of nearly 1.5 million words which was searched using WordPilot for first person pronouns and all mentions of an author's previous work. There were 6,689 instances of self reference in the papers and 459 in the abstracts; on the average 28 cases per paper, 17% of which were self citations. There was one self mention in every two abstracts. Nearly 70% of self reference and mention occurred in humanities and social science papers, but biologists employed the most self citation overall and 12% of hard science citations were found to be self citations. Interviews indicated that self citation was deemed important in establishing authority by fitting oneself into the research framework. Self mention arises in four main contexts: stating the goal or the structure of the paper, explaining a procedure, stating results or a claim, and elaborating an argument.
  19. Lardy, J.P.; Herzhaft, L.: Bibliometric treatments according to bibliographic errors and data heterogenity : the end-user point of view (1992) 0.02 
    0.017439548 = product of:
  0.052318644 = sum of:
    0.052318644 = product of:
      0.15695593 = sum of:
        0.15695593 = weight(_text_:author's in 5064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15695593 = score(doc=5064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.30199203 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044938263 = queryNorm
            0.51973534 = fieldWeight in 5064, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5064)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  20. He, S.; Spink, A.: ¬A comparison of foreign authorship distribution in JASIST and the Journal of Documentation (2002) 0.02 
    0.017439548 = product of:
  0.052318644 = sum of:
    0.052318644 = product of:
      0.15695593 = sum of:
        0.15695593 = weight(_text_:author's in 5230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15695593 = score(doc=5230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.30199203 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044938263 = queryNorm
            0.51973534 = fieldWeight in 5230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5230)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    He and Spink count the first authors in JASIST and JDoc from 1950 to 1999 whose affiliation is outside the country of origin of each publication and record the time period and the author's geographic location. Foreign authorship in JASIST increased nearly four fold from 1995 to 1999 and the number of represented locations 3.6 times while in the same time period JDoc's foreign authorship doubled and foreign locations increased four fold. The largest foreign location for JDoc is the USA and the largest foreign location for JASIST is the UK. Canada is second on both lists.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 146
  • d 8
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 151
  • m 4
  • el 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications