Search (400 results, page 1 of 20)

0.13482596 = sum of:
  0.02746794 = product of:
    0.10987176 = sum of:
      0.10987176 = weight(_text_:authors in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10987176 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 2590, 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=2590)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.10735802 = sum of:
    0.054425005 = weight(_text_:x in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054425005 = score(doc=2590,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055251822 = 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)
    0.05293302 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05293302 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055251822 = 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)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23

0.11232245 = sum of:
  0.050747585 = product of:
    0.20299034 = sum of:
      0.20299034 = weight(_text_:authors in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20299034 = score(doc=152,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.80589205 = fieldWeight in 152, 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=152)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.061574865 = product of:
    0.12314973 = sum of:
      0.12314973 = weight(_text_:x in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12314973 = score(doc=152,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = 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)

Abstract

We collected research articles from Retraction Watch database, Scopus, and a major retraction announcement by Springer, to identify emails used by authors. Authors' emails can be institutional emails and noninstitutional emails. Data suggest that retracted articles are more likely to use noninstitutional emails, but it is difficult to generalize. The study put some focus on authors from China.

0.10569285 = sum of:
  0.062152844 = product of:
    0.24861138 = sum of:
      0.24861138 = weight(_text_:authors in 3159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.24861138 = score(doc=3159,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.98701215 = fieldWeight in 3159, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3159)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.04354 = product of:
    0.08708 = sum of:
      0.08708 = weight(_text_:x in 3159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08708 = score(doc=3159,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.3732359 = fieldWeight in 3159, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3159)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We show that between 1999 and 2008 the percentage of articles with more than one corresponding author or with several authors that contributed equally, leading to so-called equal first authors, has steadily been on the rise. Increasing numbers of corresponding authors and equally contributing authors may lead to increased stress on teamwork if not properly acknowledged in research evaluation exercises.

0.079017706 = product of:
  0.15803541 = sum of:
    0.15803541 = sum of:
      0.11312026 = weight(_text_:x in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11312026 = score(doc=590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = 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)
      0.044915155 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044915155 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = 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

0.07520814 = sum of:
  0.042553145 = product of:
    0.17021258 = sum of:
      0.17021258 = weight(_text_:authors in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17021258 = score(doc=1080,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.67576104 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.032655 = product of:
    0.06531 = sum of:
      0.06531 = weight(_text_:x in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06531 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.27992693 = fieldWeight in 1080, 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=1080)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Author searching is traditionally based on the matching of name strings. Special characteristics of authors as personal names and subject indicators are not considered. This makes it difficult to identify a set of related authors or to group authors by subjects in retrieval systems. In this paper, we describe the design and implementation of a prototype visualization system to enhance author searching. The system, called AuthorLink, is based on author co-citation analysis and visualization mapping algorithms such as Kohonen's feature maps and Pathfinder networks. AuthorLink produces interactive author maps in real time from a database of 1.26 million records supplied by the Institute for Scientific Information. The maps show subject groupings and more fine-grained intellectual connections among authors. Through the interactive interface the user can take advantage of such information to refine queries and retrieve documents through point-and-click manipulation of the authors' names.

0.070579916 = product of:
  0.14115983 = sum of:
    0.14115983 = product of:
      0.56463933 = sum of:
        0.56463933 = weight(_text_:2223 in 1692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.56463933 = score(doc=1692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.5313814 = queryWeight, product of:
              9.617446 = idf(docFreq=7, maxDocs=44218)
              0.055251822 = queryNorm
            1.0625876 = fieldWeight in 1692, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              9.617446 = idf(docFreq=7, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1692)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Scientometrics. 102(2015) no.3, S.2223-2245

0.06907221 = sum of:
  0.046614632 = product of:
    0.18645853 = sum of:
      0.18645853 = weight(_text_:authors in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18645853 = score(doc=853,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.7402591 = fieldWeight in 853, 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=853)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.022457577 = product of:
    0.044915155 = sum of:
      0.044915155 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044915155 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 853, 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=853)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of a bibliometric study of the authorship characteristics of articles published in 4 major information science periodicals: JASIS, Information technology and libraries, Journal of information science, and Program. The aim was to determine the details of their authors, such as: sex, occupation, affiliation, geographic distribution, and institutional affiliation. A total of 163 articles published in 1993 and written by 294 authors were analyzed. Results indicate that: men (206 or 70%) publish 3.0 times more articles than women (69 or 23,5%). Schools of library and information science contributed the most authors. The majority of authors came from the USA (148 or 50,3%), with the Midwest region claiming the largest share (110 or 25,0%). Academic libraries (110 or 37,4%) account for the major share of library publication. 12 schools of library and information science, in the USA, contributed 32 authors (50,0%) and assistant professors (25 or 39,1%) publish the most in these library schools. Male school of library and information science authors publish 1,6 times more than their female counterparts

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.3, S.3-23

0.063569605 = sum of:
  0.044854954 = product of:
    0.17941982 = sum of:
      0.17941982 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17941982 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01871465 = product of:
    0.0374293 = sum of:
      0.0374293 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0374293 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, 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=4150)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The domain of knowledge organization (KO) represents a foundational area of information science. One way to better understand the intellectual structure of the KO domain is to apply bibliometric methods to key contributors to the literature. This study analyzes the most prolific contributing authors to the journal Knowledge Organization, the sources they cite and the citations they receive for the period 1993 to 2016. The analyses were conducted using visualization outcomes of citation, co-citation and author bibliographic coupling analysis to reveal theoretical points of reference among authors and the most prominent research themes that constitute this scientific community. Birger Hjørland was the most cited author, and was situated at or near the middle of each of the maps based on different citation relationships. The proximities between authors resulting from the different citation relationships demonstrate how authors situate themselves intellectually through the citations they give and how other authors situate them through the citations received. There is a consistent core of theoretical references as well among the most productive authors. We observed a close network of scholarly communication between the authors cited in this core, which indicates the actual role of the journal Knowledge Organization as a space for knowledge construction in the area of knowledge organization.

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.13-22

0.05892974 = sum of:
  0.03171724 = product of:
    0.12686896 = sum of:
      0.12686896 = weight(_text_:authors in 3798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12686896 = score(doc=3798,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 3798, 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=3798)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.027212502 = product of:
    0.054425005 = sum of:
      0.054425005 = weight(_text_:x in 3798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054425005 = score(doc=3798,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.23327245 = fieldWeight in 3798, 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=3798)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

During the past few decades, the rate of publication retractions has increased dramatically in academia. In this study, we investigate retractions from a quantitative perspective, aiming to answer two fundamental questions. One, how do retractions influence the scholarly impact of retracted papers, authors, and institutions? Two, does this influence propagate to the wider academic community through scholarly associations? Specifically, we analyzed a set of retracted articles indexed in Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WoS), and ran multiple experiments to compare changes in scholarly impact against a control set of nonretracted articles, authors, and institutions. We further applied the Granger Causality test to investigate whether different scientific topics are dynamically affected by retracted papers occurring within those topics. Our results show two key findings: first, the scholarly impact of retracted papers and authors significantly decreases after retraction, and the most severe impact decrease correlates with retractions based on proven, purposeful scientific misconduct; second, this retraction penalty does not seem to spread through the broader scholarly social graph, but instead has a limited and localized effect. Our findings may provide useful insights for scholars or science committees to evaluate the scholarly value of papers, authors, or institutions related to retractions.

0.057598975 = sum of:
  0.031398468 = product of:
    0.12559387 = sum of:
      0.12559387 = weight(_text_:authors in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12559387 = score(doc=3030,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 3030, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3030)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.026200507 = product of:
    0.052401014 = sum of:
      0.052401014 = weight(_text_:22 in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052401014 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3030, 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=3030)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The theory of diffusion can be successfully applied to scientific information dissemination by identifying space with a series of successive authors, and potential (temperature) with the interest of new authors towards earlier published papers, measured by the number of citations. As the total number of citation equals the number of references, the conservation law is fulfilled and Fourier's parabolic differential equation can be applied

Date

22. 2.1999 16:16:11

0.055419102 = sum of:
  0.032961525 = product of:
    0.1318461 = sum of:
      0.1318461 = weight(_text_:authors in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1318461 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.022457577 = product of:
    0.044915155 = sum of:
      0.044915155 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044915155 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Author research impact was examined based on citer analysis (the number of citers as opposed to the number of citations) for 90 highly cited authors grouped into three broad subject areas. Citer-based outcome measures were also compared with more traditional citation-based measures for levels of association. The authors found that there are significant differences in citer-based outcomes among the three broad subject areas examined and that there is a high degree of correlation between citer and citation-based measures for all measures compared, except for two outcomes calculated for the social sciences. Citer-based measures do produce slightly different rankings of authors based on citer counts when compared to more traditional citation counts. Examples are provided. Citation measures may not adequately address the influence, or reach, of an author because citations usually do not address the origin of the citation beyond self-citations.

Date

28. 9.2010 12:54:22

0.055112578 = product of:
  0.110225156 = sum of:
    0.110225156 = sum of:
      0.06531 = weight(_text_:x in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06531 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = 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)
      0.044915155 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044915155 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = 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

0.05434291 = sum of:
  0.01585862 = product of:
    0.06343448 = sum of:
      0.06343448 = weight(_text_:authors in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06343448 = score(doc=1237,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1237, 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=1237)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.03848429 = product of:
    0.07696858 = sum of:
      0.07696858 = weight(_text_:x in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07696858 = score(doc=1237,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.32989708 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The h-index provides us with 9 natural classes which can be written as a matrix of 3 vectors. The 3 vectors are: X = (X1, X2, X3) and indicates publication distribution in the h-core, the h-tail, and the uncited ones, respectively; Y = (Y1, Y2, Y3) denotes the citation distribution of the h-core, the h-tail and the so-called "excess" citations (above the h-threshold), respectively; and Z = (Z1, Z2, Z3) = (Y1-X1, Y2-X2, Y3-X3). The matrix V = (X,Y,Z)T constructs a measure of academic performance, in which the 9 numbers can all be provided with meanings in different dimensions. The "academic trace" tr(V) of this matrix follows naturally, and contributes a unique indicator for total academic achievements by summarizing and weighting the accumulation of publications and citations. This measure can also be used to combine the advantages of the h-index and the integrated impact indicator (I3) into a single number with a meaningful interpretation of the values. We illustrate the use of tr(V) for the cases of 2 journal sets, 2 universities, and ourselves as 2 individual authors.

0.053934447 = sum of:
  0.02746794 = product of:
    0.10987176 = sum of:
      0.10987176 = weight(_text_:authors in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10987176 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = 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)
  0.02646651 = product of:
    0.05293302 = sum of:
      0.05293302 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05293302 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.05168535 = sum of:
  0.019030346 = product of:
    0.07612138 = sum of:
      0.07612138 = weight(_text_:authors in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07612138 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.032655 = product of:
    0.06531 = sum of:
      0.06531 = weight(_text_:x in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06531 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.27992693 = fieldWeight in 1202, 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=1202)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Collaboration across disciplines is a critical form of scientific collaboration to solve complex problems and make innovative contributions. This study focuses on the association between multidisciplinary collaboration measured by coauthorship in publications and the disruption of publications measured by the Disruption (D) index. We used authors' affiliations as a proxy of the disciplines to which they belong and categorized an article into multidisciplinary collaboration or monodisciplinary collaboration. The D index quantifies the extent to which a study disrupts its predecessors. We selected 13 journals that publish articles in six disciplines from the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) database and then constructed regression models with fixed effects and estimated the relationship between the variables. The findings show that articles with monodisciplinary collaboration are more disruptive than those with multidisciplinary collaboration. Furthermore, we uncovered the mechanism of how monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration by exploring the references of the sampled publications.

0.049639978 = sum of:
  0.022427477 = product of:
    0.08970991 = sum of:
      0.08970991 = weight(_text_:authors in 4012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08970991 = score(doc=4012,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = 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)
  0.027212502 = product of:
    0.054425005 = sum of:
      0.054425005 = weight(_text_:x in 4012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054425005 = score(doc=4012,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.23327245 = fieldWeight in 4012, 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=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.

0.049639978 = sum of:
  0.022427477 = product of:
    0.08970991 = sum of:
      0.08970991 = weight(_text_:authors in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08970991 = score(doc=1196,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 1196, 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=1196)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.027212502 = product of:
    0.054425005 = sum of:
      0.054425005 = weight(_text_:x in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054425005 = score(doc=1196,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.23327245 = fieldWeight in 1196, 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=1196)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The phenomenon of co-corresponding authorship is becoming more and more common. To understand the practice of authorship credit sharing among multiple corresponding authors, we comprehensively analyzed the characteristics of the phenomenon of co-corresponding authorships from the perspectives of countries, disciplines, journals, and articles. This researcher was based on a dataset of nearly 8 million articles indexed in the Web of Science, which provides systematic, cross-disciplinary, and large-scale evidence for understanding the phenomenon of co-corresponding authorship for the first time. Our findings reveal that higher proportions of co-corresponding authorship exist in Asian countries, especially in China. From the perspective of disciplines, there is a relatively higher proportion of co-corresponding authorship in the fields of engineering and medicine, while a lower proportion exists in the humanities, social sciences, and computer science fields. From the perspective of journals, high-quality journals usually have higher proportions of co-corresponding authorship. At the level of the article, our findings proved that, compared to articles with a single corresponding author, articles with multiple corresponding authors have a significant citation advantage.

0.04937055 = sum of:
  0.026912972 = product of:
    0.10765189 = sum of:
      0.10765189 = weight(_text_:authors in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10765189 = score(doc=2751,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.022457577 = product of:
    0.044915155 = sum of:
      0.044915155 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044915155 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Why authors choose some references in preference to others is a question that is still not wholly answered despite its being of interest to scientists. The relevance of references is twofold: They are a mechanism for tracing the evolution of science, and because they enhance the image of the cited authors, citations are a widely known and used indicator of scientific endeavor. Following an extensive review of the literature, we selected all papers that seek to answer the central question and demonstrate that the existing theories are not sufficient: Neither citation nor indicator theory provides a complete and convincing answer. Some perspectives in this arena remain, which are isolated from the core literature. The purpose of this article is to offer a fresh perspective on a 30-year-old problem by extending the context of the discussion. We suggest reviving the discussion about citation theories with a new perspective, that of the readers, by layers or phases, in the final choice of references, allowing for a new classification in which any paper, to date, could be included.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:05:07

0.04937055 = sum of:
  0.026912972 = product of:
    0.10765189 = sum of:
      0.10765189 = weight(_text_:authors in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10765189 = score(doc=918,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = 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)
  0.022457577 = product of:
    0.044915155 = sum of:
      0.044915155 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044915155 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.048402578 = sum of:
  0.022202069 = product of:
    0.088808276 = sum of:
      0.088808276 = weight(_text_:authors in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.088808276 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 547, 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=547)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.026200507 = product of:
    0.052401014 = sum of:
      0.052401014 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052401014 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, 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=547)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article discusses how letters to the editor boost publishing metrics for journals and authors, and then examines letters published since 2015 in six elite journals, including the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. The initial findings identify some potentially anomalous use of letters and unusual self-citation patterns. The article proposes that Clarivate Analytics consider slightly reconfiguring the Journal Impact Factor to more fairly account for letters and that journals transparently explain their letter submission policies.

Date

6. 4.2022 19:22:26