Search (421 results, page 1 of 22)

0.15900393 = sum of:
  0.027316753 = product of:
    0.10926701 = sum of:
      0.10926701 = weight(_text_:authors in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10926701 = score(doc=918,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25566185 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.13168718 = sum of:
    0.08609815 = weight(_text_:y in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08609815 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
          0.056080777 = queryNorm
        0.3190201 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    0.045589026 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045589026 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19638532 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.056080777 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, 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=918)

Abstract

To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics.

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:14

0.15335569 = sum of:
  0.027880048 = product of:
    0.11152019 = sum of:
      0.11152019 = weight(_text_:authors in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11152019 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.25566185 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.12547565 = sum of:
    0.07174846 = weight(_text_:y in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07174846 = score(doc=2808,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
          0.056080777 = queryNorm
        0.26585007 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
    0.053727183 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053727183 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19638532 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.056080777 = queryNorm
        0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2808, 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=2808)

Abstract

Internet based electronic resources are growing dramatically but there have been no empirical studies evaluating the impact of e-sources, as a whole, on formal scholarly communication. reports results of an investigation into how much e-sources have been used in formal scholarly communication, using a case study in the area of Library and Information Science (LIS) during the period 1994 to 1996. 4 citation based indicators were used in the study of the impact measurement. Concludes that, compared with the impact of print sources, the impact of e-sources on formal scholarly communication in LIS is small, as measured by e-sources cited, and does not increase significantly by year even though there is observable growth of these impact across the years. It is found that periodical format is related to the rate of citing e-sources, articles are more likely to cite e-sources than are print priodical articles. However, once authors cite electronic resource, there is no significant difference in the number of references per article by periodical format or by year. Suggests that, at this stage, citing e-sources may depend on authors rather than the periodical format in which authors choose to publish

Date

30. 1.1999 17:22:22

0.13250329 = sum of:
  0.022763962 = product of:
    0.09105585 = sum of:
      0.09105585 = weight(_text_:authors in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09105585 = score(doc=4959,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25566185 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.10973932 = sum of:
    0.07174846 = weight(_text_:y in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07174846 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
          0.056080777 = queryNorm
        0.26585007 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
    0.037990857 = weight(_text_:22 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037990857 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19638532 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.056080777 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4959, 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=4959)

Abstract

This study uses three bibliometric methods: direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-authorship analysis, to investigate interdisciplinary changes in library and information science (LIS) from 1978 to 2007. The results reveal that LIS researchers most frequently cite publications in their own discipline. In addition, half of all co-authors of LIS articles are affiliated with LIS-related institutes. The results confirm that the degree of interdisciplinarity within LIS has increased, particularly co-authorship. However, the study found sources of direct citations in LIS articles are widely distributed across 30 disciplines, but co-authors of LIS articles are distributed across only 25 disciplines. The degree of interdisciplinarity was found ranging from 0.61 to 0.82 with citation to references in all articles being the highest and that of co-authorship being the lowest. Percentages of contribution attributable to LIS show a decreasing tendency based on the results of direct citation and co-authorship analysis, but an increasing tendency based on those of bibliographic coupling analysis. Such differences indicate each of the three bibliometric methods has its strength and provides insights respectively for viewing various aspects of interdisciplinarity, suggesting the use of no single bibliometric method can reveal all aspects of interdisciplinarity due to its multifaceted nature.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.22-33

0.12583587 = sum of:
  0.016096551 = product of:
    0.064386204 = sum of:
      0.064386204 = weight(_text_:authors in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064386204 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25566185 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.10973932 = sum of:
    0.07174846 = weight(_text_:y in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07174846 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
          0.056080777 = queryNorm
        0.26585007 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.037990857 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037990857 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19638532 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.056080777 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)

Abstract

The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06

0.12547565 = product of:
  0.2509513 = sum of:
    0.2509513 = sum of:
      0.14349692 = weight(_text_:y in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14349692 = score(doc=3690,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.53170013 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
      0.10745437 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10745437 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19638532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = 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

0.1115668 = product of:
  0.2231336 = sum of:
    0.2231336 = sum of:
      0.16234823 = weight(_text_:y in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16234823 = score(doc=1144,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.60155004 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
      0.060785368 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060785368 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19638532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1144, 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=1144)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30.12.2007 11:22:39

Source

¬La interdisciplinariedad y la transdisciplinariedad en la organización del conocimiento científico : actas del VIII Congreso ISKO-España, León, 18, 19 y 20 de Abril de 2007 : Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in the organization of scientific knowledge. Ed.: B. Rodriguez Bravo u. M.L Alvite Diez

0.10890773 = sum of:
  0.051508963 = product of:
    0.20603585 = sum of:
      0.20603585 = weight(_text_:authors in 5066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20603585 = score(doc=5066,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.25566185 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.80589205 = fieldWeight in 5066, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5066)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.057398766 = product of:
    0.11479753 = sum of:
      0.11479753 = weight(_text_:y in 5066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11479753 = score(doc=5066,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.4253601 = fieldWeight in 5066, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5066)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bradford's law of scatter was applied to the analysis of the authors of source documents on the subject of classification schemes, published in core periodicals over the period 1981-1990. Results indicated that: core authors of the international classification system literature are Library of Congress, M. Dewey, S. Ranganathan, J. Comaroni, A. Neelameghan, L. Chan and K. Markey; the highly cited authors are linked either to the developers of the classification schemes or to a research centre, or else they authored the most frequently cited books; and the data conforms to Bradford's Law of Scatter

0.09529426 = sum of:
  0.045070343 = product of:
    0.18028137 = sum of:
      0.18028137 = weight(_text_:authors in 2792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18028137 = score(doc=2792,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.25566185 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.70515555 = fieldWeight in 2792, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2792)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.050223917 = product of:
    0.10044783 = sum of:
      0.10044783 = weight(_text_:y in 2792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10044783 = score(doc=2792,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.3721901 = fieldWeight in 2792, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2792)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of a cocitation analysis study from the international retrieval research field from 1987 to 1997. Data was taken from Social SciSearch, via Dialog, and the top 40 authors were submitted to author cocitation analysis to yield the intellectual structure of information retrieval. The resulting multidimensional scaling map revealed: identifiable author groups for information retrieval; location of these groups with respect to each other; extend of centrality and peripherality of authors within groups, proximities of authors within groups and across group boundaries; and the meaning of the axes of the map. Factor analysis was used to reveal the extent of the authors' research areas and statistical routines included: ALSCAL; clustering analysis and factor analysis

0.09036308 = sum of:
  0.047314003 = product of:
    0.18925601 = sum of:
      0.18925601 = weight(_text_:authors in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18925601 = score(doc=3161,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.25566185 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.7402591 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.043049075 = product of:
    0.08609815 = sum of:
      0.08609815 = weight(_text_:y in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08609815 = score(doc=3161,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.3190201 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper studies how varied damping factors in the PageRank algorithm influence the ranking of authors and proposes weighted PageRank algorithms. We selected the 108 most highly cited authors in the information retrieval (IR) area from the 1970s to 2008 to form the author co-citation network. We calculated the ranks of these 108 authors based on PageRank with the damping factor ranging from 0.05 to 0.95. In order to test the relationship between different measures, we compared PageRank and weighted PageRank results with the citation ranking, h-index, and centrality measures. We found that in our author co-citation network, citation rank is highly correlated with PageRank with different damping factors and also with different weighted PageRank algorithms; citation rank and PageRank are not significantly correlated with centrality measures; and h-index rank does not significantly correlate with centrality measures but does significantly correlate with other measures. The key factors that have impact on the PageRank of authors in the author co-citation network are being co-cited with important authors.

0.08925598 = sum of:
  0.039032064 = product of:
    0.15612826 = sum of:
      0.15612826 = weight(_text_:authors in 5060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15612826 = score(doc=5060,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.25566185 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.61068267 = fieldWeight in 5060, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5060)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.050223917 = product of:
    0.10044783 = sum of:
      0.10044783 = weight(_text_:y in 5060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10044783 = score(doc=5060,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.3721901 = fieldWeight in 5060, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5060)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a bibliometric study of references to indexing and abstracting from 1876 to 1976 a total of 2.381 references in Wellisch's Indexing and abstracting: an international bibliography were analysed by a PL/I program. Most of the articles (67%) appeared as journal papers. The Bradford-Zipf law was applied to investigate the journal literature. Thirteen core journals were identified, six of which emphasize the subject of indexing and abstracting. Lotka's law was used to measure the productivity of authors. The vast majority, 1.533 out of 1.966 authors, contributed only one article. The leading authors and their active life in this subject were also studied. English is the predominant language of articles on indexing and abstracting

0.088197336 = sum of:
  0.027316753 = product of:
    0.10926701 = sum of:
      0.10926701 = weight(_text_:authors in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10926701 = score(doc=4011,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25566185 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.060880583 = product of:
    0.121761166 = sum of:
      0.121761166 = weight(_text_:y in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.121761166 = score(doc=4011,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.45116252 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Scientific collaboration is essential in solving problems and breeding innovation. Coauthor network analysis has been utilized to study scholars' collaborations for a long time, but these studies have not simultaneously taken different collaboration features into consideration. In this paper, we present a systematic approach to analyze the differences in possibilities that two authors will cooperate as seen from the effects of homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment. Exponential random graph models (ERGMs) are applied in this research. We find that different types of publications one author has written play diverse roles in his/her collaborations. An author's tendency to form new collaborations with her/his coauthors' collaborators is strong, where the more coauthors one author had before, the more new collaborators he/she will attract. We demonstrate that considering the authors' attributes and homophily effects as well as the transitivity and preferential attachment effects of the coauthorship network in which they are embedded helps us gain a comprehensive understanding of scientific collaboration.

0.08784501 = sum of:
  0.016096551 = product of:
    0.064386204 = sum of:
      0.064386204 = weight(_text_:authors in 5963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064386204 = score(doc=5963,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25566185 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5963, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5963)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.07174846 = product of:
    0.14349692 = sum of:
      0.14349692 = weight(_text_:y in 5963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14349692 = score(doc=5963,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.53170013 = fieldWeight in 5963, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5963)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Collaborations are pervasive in current science. Collaborations have been studied and encouraged in many disciplines. However, little is known about how a team really functions from the detailed division of labor within. In this research, we investigate the patterns of scientific collaboration and division of labor within individual scholarly articles by analyzing their co-contributorship networks. Co-contributorship networks are constructed by performing the one-mode projection of the author-task bipartite networks obtained from 138,787 articles published in PLoS journals. Given an article, we define 3 types of contributors: Specialists, Team-players, and Versatiles. Specialists are those who contribute to all their tasks alone; team-players are those who contribute to every task with other collaborators; and versatiles are those who do both. We find that team-players are the majority and they tend to contribute to the 5 most common tasks as expected, such as "data analysis" and "performing experiments." The specialists and versatiles are more prevalent than expected by our designed 2 null models. Versatiles tend to be senior authors associated with funding and supervision. Specialists are associated with 2 contrasting roles: the supervising role as team leaders or marginal and specialized contributors.

0.08489995 = sum of:
  0.022763962 = product of:
    0.09105585 = sum of:
      0.09105585 = weight(_text_:authors in 4012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09105585 = score(doc=4012,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25566185 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 4012, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4012)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.062135987 = product of:
    0.124271974 = sum of:
      0.124271974 = weight(_text_:y in 4012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.124271974 = score(doc=4012,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.46046585 = fieldWeight in 4012, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4012)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Scientific collaboration is vital to many fields, and it is common to see scholars seek out experienced researchers or experts in a domain with whom they can share knowledge, experience, and resources. To explore the diversity of research collaborations, this article performs a temporal analysis on the scientific careers of researchers in the field of computer science. Specifically, we analyze collaborators using 2 indicators: the research topic diversity, measured by the Author-Conference-Topic model and cosine, and the impact diversity, measured by the normalized standard deviation of h-indices. We find that the collaborators of high-impact researchers tend to study diverse research topics and have diverse h-indices. Moreover, by setting PhD graduation as an important milestone in researchers' careers, we examine several indicators related to scientific collaboration and their effects on a career. The results show that collaborating with authoritative authors plays an important role prior to a researcher's PhD graduation, but working with non-authoritative authors carries more weight after PhD graduation.

0.08315325 = sum of:
  0.025754482 = product of:
    0.103017926 = sum of:
      0.103017926 = weight(_text_:authors in 3705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.103017926 = score(doc=3705,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25566185 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 3705, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3705)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.057398766 = product of:
    0.11479753 = sum of:
      0.11479753 = weight(_text_:y in 3705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11479753 = score(doc=3705,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.4253601 = fieldWeight in 3705, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3705)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors propose using the technique of weighted citation to measure an article's prestige. The technique allocates a different weight to each reference by taking into account the impact of citing journals and citation time intervals. Weightedcitation captures prestige, whereas citation counts capture popularity. They compare the value variances for popularity and prestige for articles published in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology from 1998 to 2007, and find that the majority have comparable status.

0.08292692 = sum of:
  0.032193102 = product of:
    0.12877241 = sum of:
      0.12877241 = weight(_text_:authors in 4370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12877241 = score(doc=4370,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.25566185 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 4370, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4370)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.05073382 = product of:
    0.10146764 = sum of:
      0.10146764 = weight(_text_:y in 4370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10146764 = score(doc=4370,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.37596878 = fieldWeight in 4370, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4370)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper proposes a methodology which discriminates the articles by the target authors ("true" articles) from those by other homonymous authors ("false" articles). Author name searches for 2,595 "source" authors in six subject fields retrieved about 629,000 articles. In order to extract true articles from the large amount of the retrieved articles, including many false ones, two filtering stages were applied. At the first stage any retrieved article was eliminated as false if either its affiliation addresses had little similarity to those of its source article or there was no citation relationship between the journal of the retrieved article and that of its source article. At the second stage, a sample of retrieved articles was subjected to manual judgment, and utilizing the judgment results, discrimination functions based on logistic regression were defined. These discrimination functions demonstrated both the recall ratio and the precision of about 95% and the accuracy (correct answer ratio) of 90-95%. Existence of common coauthor(s), address similarity, title words similarity, and interjournal citation relationships between the retrieved and source articles were found to be the effective discrimination predictors. Whether or not the source author was from a specific country was also one of the important predictors. Furthermore, it was shown that a retrieved article is almost certainly true if it was cited by, or cocited with, its source article. The method proposed in this study would be effective when dealing with a large number of articles whose subject fields and affiliation addresses vary widely.

0.08292692 = sum of:
  0.032193102 = product of:
    0.12877241 = sum of:
      0.12877241 = weight(_text_:authors in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12877241 = score(doc=917,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.25566185 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.05073382 = product of:
    0.10146764 = sum of:
      0.10146764 = weight(_text_:y in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10146764 = score(doc=917,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.37596878 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Coauthorship prediction applies predictive analytics to bibliographic data to predict authors who are highly likely to be coauthors. In this study, we propose an approach for coauthorship prediction based on bibliographic network embedding through a graph-based bibliographic data model that can be used to model common bibliographic data, including papers, terms, sources, authors, departments, research interests, universities, and countries. A real-world dataset released by AMiner that includes more than 2 million papers, 8 million citations, and 1.7 million authors were integrated into a large bibliographic network using the proposed bibliographic data model. Translation-based methods were applied to the entities and relationships to generate their low-dimensional embeddings while preserving their connectivity information in the original bibliographic network. We applied machine learning algorithms to embeddings that represent the coauthorship relationships of the two authors and achieved high prediction results. The reference model, which is the combination of a network embedding size of 100, the most basic translation-based method, and a gradient boosting method achieved an F1 score of 0.9 and even higher scores are obtainable with different embedding sizes and more advanced embedding methods. Thus, the strengths of the proposed approach lie in its customizable components under a unified framework.

0.07681751 = product of:
  0.15363503 = sum of:
    0.15363503 = sum of:
      0.10044783 = weight(_text_:y in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10044783 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.3721901 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
      0.053187195 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053187195 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19638532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, 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=4188)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2011 13:02:21

0.076505125 = sum of:
  0.033456054 = product of:
    0.13382421 = sum of:
      0.13382421 = weight(_text_:authors in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13382421 = score(doc=3765,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.25566185 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 3765, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3765)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.043049075 = product of:
    0.08609815 = sum of:
      0.08609815 = weight(_text_:y in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08609815 = score(doc=3765,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.3190201 = fieldWeight in 3765, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3765)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Big Science and cross-disciplinary collaborations have reshaped the intellectual structure of research areas. A number of works have tried to uncover this hidden intellectual structure by analyzing citation contexts. However, none of them analyzed by document logical structures such as sections. The two major goals of this study are to find characteristics of authors who are highly cited section-wise and to identify the differences in section-wise author networks. This study uses 29,158 of research articles culled from the ACL Anthology, which hosts articles on computational linguistics and natural language processing. We find that the distribution of citations across sections is skewed and that a different set of highly cited authors share distinct academic characteristics, according to their citation locations. Furthermore, the author networks based on citation context similarity reveal that the intellectual structure of a domain differs across different sections.

0.07528539 = product of:
  0.15057078 = sum of:
    0.15057078 = sum of:
      0.08609815 = weight(_text_:y in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08609815 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.3190201 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.06447262 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06447262 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19638532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.07275909 = sum of:
  0.022535171 = product of:
    0.090140685 = sum of:
      0.090140685 = weight(_text_:authors in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.090140685 = score(doc=3083,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25566185 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.050223917 = product of:
    0.10044783 = sum of:
      0.10044783 = weight(_text_:y in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10044783 = score(doc=3083,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26988316 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056080777 = queryNorm
          0.3721901 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many studies on coauthorship networks focus on network topology and network statistical mechanics. This article takes a different approach by studying micro-level network properties with the aim of applying centrality measures to impact analysis. Using coauthorship data from 16 journals in the field of library and information science (LIS) with a time span of 20 years (1988-2007), we construct an evolving coauthorship network and calculate four centrality measures (closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, degree centrality, and PageRank) for authors in this network. We find that the four centrality measures are significantly correlated with citation counts. We also discuss the usability of centrality measures in author ranking and suggest that centrality measures can be useful indicators for impact analysis.