-
Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986)
0.06
0.060992494 = product of:
0.12198499 = sum of:
0.12198499 = sum of:
0.010725014 = weight(_text_:s in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010725014 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.19219826 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
0.111259975 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.111259975 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17972933 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
-
Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987)
0.06
0.060992494 = product of:
0.12198499 = sum of:
0.12198499 = sum of:
0.010725014 = weight(_text_:s in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010725014 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.19219826 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
0.111259975 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.111259975 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17972933 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
-
Ahlgren, P.; Järvelin, K.: Measuring impact of twelve information scientists using the DCI index (2010)
0.06
0.056335177 = sum of:
0.054324236 = product of:
0.21729694 = sum of:
0.21729694 = weight(_text_:author's in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.21729694 = score(doc=3593,freq=4.0), product of:
0.3449079 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.00201094 = product of:
0.00402188 = sum of:
0.00402188 = weight(_text_:s in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00402188 = score(doc=3593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1424-1439
-
Danell, R.: Can the quality of scientific work be predicted using information on the author's track record? (2011)
0.06
0.056335177 = sum of:
0.054324236 = product of:
0.21729694 = sum of:
0.21729694 = weight(_text_:author's in 4131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.21729694 = score(doc=4131,freq=4.0), product of:
0.3449079 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.00201094 = product of:
0.00402188 = sum of:
0.00402188 = weight(_text_:s in 4131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00402188 = score(doc=4131,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4131, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4131)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.50-60
-
Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994)
0.06
0.055312008 = product of:
0.110624015 = sum of:
0.110624015 = sum of:
0.013271529 = weight(_text_:s in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013271529 = score(doc=5666,freq=4.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.23783323 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
0.09735248 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09735248 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17972933 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
- Pages
- 185 S
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990)
0.05
0.053368434 = product of:
0.10673687 = sum of:
0.10673687 = sum of:
0.009384387 = weight(_text_:s in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009384387 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.16817348 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
0.09735248 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09735248 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17972933 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:29
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.5, S.368-375
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990)
0.05
0.053368434 = product of:
0.10673687 = sum of:
0.10673687 = sum of:
0.009384387 = weight(_text_:s in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009384387 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.16817348 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
0.09735248 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09735248 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17972933 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:55
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.5, S.376-386
-
Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998)
0.05
0.052521992 = product of:
0.105043985 = sum of:
0.105043985 = sum of:
0.006703134 = weight(_text_:s in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006703134 = score(doc=3690,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.120123915 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
0.098340854 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.098340854 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17972933 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 5.1999 19:22:35
- Source
- Scientometrics. 42(1998) no.2, S.259-265
-
He, S.; Spink, A.: ¬A comparison of foreign authorship distribution in JASIST and the Journal of Documentation (2002)
0.05
0.04813309 = sum of:
0.04481521 = product of:
0.17926084 = sum of:
0.17926084 = weight(_text_:author's in 5230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.17926084 = score(doc=5230,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3449079 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.0033178823 = product of:
0.0066357646 = sum of:
0.0066357646 = weight(_text_:s in 5230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0066357646 = score(doc=5230,freq=4.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.118916616 = fieldWeight in 5230, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5230)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.11, S.953-959
-
Lardy, J.P.; Herzhaft, L.: Bibliometric treatments according to bibliographic errors and data heterogenity : the end-user point of view (1992)
0.05
0.047161307 = sum of:
0.04481521 = product of:
0.17926084 = sum of:
0.17926084 = weight(_text_:author's in 5064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.17926084 = score(doc=5064,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3449079 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.0023460968 = product of:
0.0046921936 = sum of:
0.0046921936 = weight(_text_:s in 5064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0046921936 = score(doc=5064,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 5064, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5064)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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
- Pages
- S.547-556
-
Crispo, E.: ¬A new index to use in conjunction with the h-index to account for an author's relative contribution to publications with high impact (2015)
0.05
0.047161307 = sum of:
0.04481521 = product of:
0.17926084 = sum of:
0.17926084 = weight(_text_:author's in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.17926084 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3449079 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.51973534 = fieldWeight in 2264, 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=2264)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.0023460968 = product of:
0.0046921936 = sum of:
0.0046921936 = weight(_text_:s in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0046921936 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2381-2383
-
Rousseau, R.; Zuccala, A.: ¬A classification of author co-citations : definitions and search strategies (2004)
0.05
0.046945978 = sum of:
0.045270193 = product of:
0.18108077 = sum of:
0.18108077 = weight(_text_:author's in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18108077 = score(doc=2266,freq=4.0), product of:
0.3449079 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.0016757835 = product of:
0.003351567 = sum of:
0.003351567 = weight(_text_:s in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003351567 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.6, S.513-529
-
Hyland, K.: Self-citation and self-reference : credibility and promotion in academic publication (2003)
0.05
0.046945978 = sum of:
0.045270193 = product of:
0.18108077 = sum of:
0.18108077 = weight(_text_:author's in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18108077 = score(doc=5156,freq=4.0), product of:
0.3449079 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.0016757835 = product of:
0.003351567 = sum of:
0.003351567 = weight(_text_:s in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003351567 = score(doc=5156,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.3, S.251-259
-
Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005)
0.05
0.04574437 = product of:
0.09148874 = sum of:
0.09148874 = sum of:
0.00804376 = weight(_text_:s in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00804376 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
0.08344498 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08344498 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17972933 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2007 17:02:22
- Source
- Aslib proceedings. 57(2005) no.3, S.200-
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.05
0.04574437 = product of:
0.09148874 = sum of:
0.09148874 = sum of:
0.00804376 = weight(_text_:s in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00804376 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.08344498 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08344498 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17972933 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.866-867
-
White, H.D.: Authors as citers over time (2001)
0.05
0.04569618 = sum of:
0.044355553 = product of:
0.17742221 = sum of:
0.17742221 = weight(_text_:author's in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.17742221 = score(doc=5581,freq=6.0), product of:
0.3449079 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.5144046 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.0013406267 = product of:
0.0026812535 = sum of:
0.0026812535 = weight(_text_:s in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0026812535 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This study explores the tendency of authors to recite themselves and others in multiple works over time, using the insights gained to build citation theory. The set of all authors whom an author cites is defined as that author's citation identity. The study explains how to retrieve citation identities from the Institute for Scientific Information's files on Dialog and how to deal with idiosyncrasies of these files. As the author's oeuvre grows, the identity takes the form of a core-and-scatter distribution that may be divided into authors cited only once (unicitations) and authors cited at least twice (recitations). The latter group, especially those recited most frequently, are interpretable as symbols of a citer's main substantive concerns. As illustrated by the top recitees of eight information scientists, identities are intelligible, individualized, and wide-ranging. They are ego-centered without being egotistical. They are often affected by social ties between citers and citees, but the universal motivator seems to be the perceived relevance of the citees' works. Citing styles in identities differ: "scientific-paper style" authors recite heavily, adding to core; "bibliographic-essay style" authors are heavy on unicitations, adding to scatter; "literature-review style" authors do both at once. Identities distill aspects of citers' intellectual lives, such as orienting figures, interdisciplinary interests, bidisciplinary careers, and conduct in controversies. They can also be related to past schemes for classifying citations in categories such as positive-negative and perfunctory- organic; indeed, one author's frequent recitation of another, whether positive or negative, may be the readiest indicator of an organic relation between them. The shape of the core-and-scatter distribution of names in identities can be explained by the principle of least effort. Citers economize on effort by frequently reciting only a relatively small core of names in their identities. They also economize by frequent use of perfunctory citations, which require relatively little context, and infrequent use of negative citations, which require contexts more laborious to set
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.2, S.87-108
-
Pierce, S.J.: Boundary crossing in research literatures as a means of interdisciplinary information transfer (1999)
0.04
0.040423978 = sum of:
0.038413037 = product of:
0.15365215 = sum of:
0.15365215 = weight(_text_:author's in 3062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15365215 = score(doc=3062,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3449079 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 3062, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3062)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.00201094 = product of:
0.00402188 = sum of:
0.00402188 = weight(_text_:s in 3062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00402188 = score(doc=3062,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 3062, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3062)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Contemporary models of interdisciplinary information transfer treat disciplines as such sharply bounded groups that boundary-crossing publication (contributions to disciplinary literatures authored by researchers from other disciplines) should be very difficult, if not impossible. Yet boundary-crossing authors can be identified in many disciplinary literatures. A study of 4 core journals in political science and sociology identified 199 articles between 1971 and 1990. Two-thirds of these articles had single authors, and only one in six had coauthors from the discipline of the journal in which they were published. Readership and use of these articles, as measured by citation rates, was only slightly below normal. The articles were judged successful in interdisciplinary information transfer in that they received more citation sfrom the disciplines with which their first authors were affiliated, and more citations from other disciplines than from either the discipline of publication or the first author's discipline. Results suggest that disciplinary boundaries are less restricitive than the literature suggests, and that boundary-crossing publications are involved in complex patterns of interdisciplinary information transfer
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.3, S.271-279
-
Torvik, V.I.; Weeber, M.; Swanson, D.R.; Smalheiser, N.R.: ¬A probabilistic similarity metric for medline mecords : a model for author name disambiguation (2005)
0.04
0.040423978 = sum of:
0.038413037 = product of:
0.15365215 = sum of:
0.15365215 = weight(_text_:author's in 3308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15365215 = score(doc=3308,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3449079 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 3308, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3308)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.00201094 = product of:
0.00402188 = sum of:
0.00402188 = weight(_text_:s in 3308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00402188 = score(doc=3308,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 3308, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3308)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We present a model for estimating the probability that a pair of author names (sharing last name and first initial), appearing an two different Medline articles, refer to the same individual. The model uses a simple yet powerful similarity profile between a pair of articles, based an title, journal name, coauthor names, medical subject headings (MeSH), language, affiliation, and name attributes (prevalence in the literature, middle initial, and suffix). The similarity profile distribution is computed from reference sets consisting of pairs of articles containing almost exclusively author matches versus nonmatches, generated in an unbiased manner. Although the match set is generated automatically and might contain a small proportion of nonmatches, the model is quite robust against contamination with nonmatches. We have created a free, public service ("Author-ity": http://arrowsmith.psych.uic.edu) that takes as input an author's name given an a specific article, and gives as output a list of all articles with that (last name, first initial) ranked by decreasing similarity, with match probability indicated.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.2, S.140-158
-
McCain, K.W.: Assessing an author's influence using time series historiographic mapping : the oeuvre of Conrad Hal Waddington (2008)
0.04
0.040423978 = sum of:
0.038413037 = product of:
0.15365215 = sum of:
0.15365215 = weight(_text_:author's in 1375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15365215 = score(doc=1375,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3449079 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 1375, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1375)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.00201094 = product of:
0.00402188 = sum of:
0.00402188 = weight(_text_:s in 1375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00402188 = score(doc=1375,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1375, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1375)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.4, S.510-525
-
Burrell, Q.L.: Formulae for the h-index : a lack of robustness in Lotkaian informetrics? (2013)
0.04
0.040423978 = sum of:
0.038413037 = product of:
0.15365215 = sum of:
0.15365215 = weight(_text_:author's in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15365215 = score(doc=977,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3449079 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 977, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=977)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.00201094 = product of:
0.00402188 = sum of:
0.00402188 = weight(_text_:s in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00402188 = score(doc=977,freq=2.0), product of:
0.055801827 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05132441 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 977, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=977)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In one of the first attempts at providing a mathematical framework for the Hirsch index, Egghe and Rousseau (2006) assumed the standard Lotka model for an author's citation distribution to derive a delightfully simple closed formula for his/her h-index. More recently, the same authors (Egghe & Rousseau, 2012b) have presented a new (implicit) formula based on the so-called shifted Lotka function to allow for the objection that the original model makes no allowance for papers receiving zero citations. Here it is shown, through a small empirical study, that the formulae actually give very similar results whether or not the uncited papers are included. However, and more important, it is found that they both seriously underestimate the true h-index, and we suggest that the reason for this is that this is a context-the citation distribution of an author-in which straightforward Lotkaian informetrics is inappropriate. Indeed, the analysis suggests that even if we restrict attention to the upper tail of the citation distribution, a simple Lotka/Pareto-like model can give misleading results.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.7, S.1504-1514
