Search (187 results, page 1 of 10)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.07 
    0.071842484 = product of:
  0.14368497 = sum of:
    0.14368497 = sum of:
      0.10284834 = weight(_text_:x in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10284834 = score(doc=590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.21212505 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050234668 = queryNorm
          0.48484772 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
      0.04083662 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04083662 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17591324 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050234668 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Zur Kurzmitteilung "Latest enhancements in Scopus: ... h-Index incorporated in Scopus" in den letzten Online-Mitteilungen (Online-Mitteilungen 92, S.31) ist zu korrigieren, dass der h-Index sehr wohl bereits im Web of Science enthalten ist. Allerdings findet man/frau diese Information nicht in der "cited ref search", sondern neben der Trefferliste einer Quick Search, General Search oder einer Suche über den Author Finder in der rechten Navigationsleiste unter dem Titel "Citation Report". Der "Citation Report" bietet für die in der jeweiligen Trefferliste angezeigten Arbeiten: - Die Gesamtzahl der Zitierungen aller Arbeiten in der Trefferliste - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten - Die Anzahl der Zitierungen der einzelnen Arbeiten, aufgeschlüsselt nach Publikationsjahr der zitierenden Arbeiten - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten pro Jahr - Den h-Index (ein h-Index von x sagt aus, dass x Arbeiten der Trefferliste mehr als x-mal zitiert wurden; er ist gegenüber sehr hohen Zitierungen einzelner Arbeiten unempfindlicher als die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit)."
    Date
    6. 4.2008 19:04:22
  2. Wan, X.; Liu, F.: Are all literature citations equally important? : automatic citation strength estimation and its applications (2014) 0.05 
    0.050108068 = product of:
  0.100216135 = sum of:
    0.100216135 = sum of:
      0.059379514 = weight(_text_:x in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059379514 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21212505 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050234668 = queryNorm
          0.27992693 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
      0.04083662 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04083662 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17591324 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050234668 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:12:35
  3. Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015) 0.05 
    0.048804678 = product of:
  0.097609356 = sum of:
    0.097609356 = sum of:
      0.04948293 = weight(_text_:x in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04948293 = score(doc=2590,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21212505 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050234668 = queryNorm
          0.23327245 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
      0.048126422 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048126422 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17591324 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050234668 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    17. 9.2018 18:22:23
  4. Ye, F.Y.: ¬A theoretical approach to the unification of informetric models by wave-heat equations (2011) 0.03 
    0.027991772 = product of:
  0.055983543 = sum of:
    0.055983543 = product of:
      0.11196709 = sum of:
        0.11196709 = weight(_text_:x in 4464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11196709 = score(doc=4464,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21212505 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050234668 = queryNorm
            0.5278353 = fieldWeight in 4464, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A simple distribution function f(x, t)=p(x+q)**-ße**alpha*t obeys wave and heat equations, that constructs a theoretical approach to the unification of informetric models, with which we can unify all informetric laws. While its space-type distributions deduce naturally Lotka-type laws in size approaches and Zipf-type laws in rank approaches, its time-type distributions introduce the mechanism of Price-type and Brookes-type laws.
  5. Liu, X.; Chen, X.: Authors' noninstitutional emails and their correlation with retraction (2021) 0.03 
    0.027991772 = product of:
  0.055983543 = sum of:
    0.055983543 = product of:
      0.11196709 = sum of:
        0.11196709 = weight(_text_:x in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11196709 = score(doc=152,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21212505 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050234668 = queryNorm
            0.5278353 = fieldWeight in 152, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  6. Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986) 0.03 
    0.027224416 = product of:
  0.05444883 = sum of:
    0.05444883 = product of:
      0.10889766 = sum of:
        0.10889766 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10889766 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17591324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050234668 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
  7. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.03 
    0.027224416 = product of:
  0.05444883 = sum of:
    0.05444883 = product of:
      0.10889766 = sum of:
        0.10889766 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10889766 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17591324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050234668 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, 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=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  8. Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987) 0.03 
    0.027224416 = product of:
  0.05444883 = sum of:
    0.05444883 = product of:
      0.10889766 = sum of:
        0.10889766 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10889766 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17591324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050234668 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
  9. Ahlgren, P.; Järvelin, K.: Measuring impact of twelve information scientists using the DCI index (2010) 0.03 
    0.026585398 = product of:
  0.053170796 = sum of:
    0.053170796 = product of:
      0.21268319 = sum of:
        0.21268319 = weight(_text_:author's in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21268319 = score(doc=3593,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.33758467 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050234668 = 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)
  0.5 = 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.
  10. Danell, R.: Can the quality of scientific work be predicted using information on the author's track record? (2011) 0.03 
    0.026585398 = product of:
  0.053170796 = sum of:
    0.053170796 = product of:
      0.21268319 = sum of:
        0.21268319 = weight(_text_:author's in 4131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21268319 = score(doc=4131,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.33758467 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050234668 = 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)
  0.5 = 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.
  11. Rip, A.: Qualitative conditions of scientometrics : the new challenges (1997) 0.02 
    0.024741465 = product of:
  0.04948293 = sum of:
    0.04948293 = product of:
      0.09896586 = sum of:
        0.09896586 = weight(_text_:x in 408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09896586 = score(doc=408,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21212505 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050234668 = queryNorm
            0.4665449 = fieldWeight in 408, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=408)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Explains how a closer look at how scientometricians aggregate building blocks into artfully made products, and point-represent these (e.g. as the map of field X) allows one to overcome the dependence on judgements of scientists for validation, and replace or complement these with intrinsic validation, based on quality checks of the several steps
  12. Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998) 0.02 
    0.024063211 = product of:
  0.048126422 = sum of:
    0.048126422 = product of:
      0.096252844 = sum of:
        0.096252844 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096252844 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17591324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050234668 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:22:35
  13. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.02 
    0.024063211 = product of:
  0.048126422 = sum of:
    0.048126422 = product of:
      0.096252844 = sum of:
        0.096252844 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096252844 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17591324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050234668 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, 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=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  14. Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994) 0.02 
    0.023821363 = product of:
  0.047642726 = sum of:
    0.047642726 = product of:
      0.09528545 = sum of:
        0.09528545 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09528545 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17591324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050234668 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
  15. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990) 0.02 
    0.023821363 = product of:
  0.047642726 = sum of:
    0.047642726 = product of:
      0.09528545 = sum of:
        0.09528545 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09528545 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17591324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050234668 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:29
  16. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990) 0.02 
    0.023821363 = product of:
  0.047642726 = sum of:
    0.047642726 = product of:
      0.09528545 = sum of:
        0.09528545 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09528545 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17591324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050234668 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:55
  17. Rousseau, R.; Zuccala, A.: ¬A classification of author co-citations : definitions and search strategies (2004) 0.02 
    0.022154499 = product of:
  0.044308998 = sum of:
    0.044308998 = product of:
      0.17723599 = sum of:
        0.17723599 = weight(_text_:author's in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17723599 = score(doc=2266,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.33758467 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050234668 = 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)
  0.5 = 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.
  18. Hyland, K.: Self-citation and self-reference : credibility and promotion in academic publication (2003) 0.02 
    0.022154499 = product of:
  0.044308998 = sum of:
    0.044308998 = product of:
      0.17723599 = sum of:
        0.17723599 = weight(_text_:author's in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17723599 = score(doc=5156,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.33758467 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050234668 = 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)
  0.5 = 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.
  19. Lardy, J.P.; Herzhaft, L.: Bibliometric treatments according to bibliographic errors and data heterogenity : the end-user point of view (1992) 0.02 
    0.021931836 = product of:
  0.043863673 = sum of:
    0.043863673 = product of:
      0.17545469 = sum of:
        0.17545469 = weight(_text_:author's in 5064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17545469 = score(doc=5064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33758467 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050234668 = 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)
  0.5 = 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
  20. He, S.; Spink, A.: ¬A comparison of foreign authorship distribution in JASIST and the Journal of Documentation (2002) 0.02 
    0.021931836 = product of:
  0.043863673 = sum of:
    0.043863673 = product of:
      0.17545469 = sum of:
        0.17545469 = weight(_text_:author's in 5230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17545469 = score(doc=5230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33758467 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050234668 = 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)
  0.5 = 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.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 174
  • d 10
  • f 1
  • m 1
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 179
  • m 3
  • s 3
  • x 3
  • el 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications