Search (477 results, page 1 of 24)

0.10548312 = sum of:
  0.02605156 = product of:
    0.10420624 = sum of:
      0.10420624 = weight(_text_:authors in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10420624 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = 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)
  0.07943156 = sum of:
    0.029228024 = weight(_text_:j in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029228024 = score(doc=2590,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052402776 = queryNorm
        0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.05020354 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05020354 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1835056 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052402776 = 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

0.10356367 = product of:
  0.20712733 = sum of:
    0.20712733 = sum of:
      0.09352968 = weight(_text_:j in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09352968 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.5617073 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.11359765 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11359765 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1835056 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = 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)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.10356367 = product of:
  0.20712733 = sum of:
    0.20712733 = sum of:
      0.09352968 = weight(_text_:j in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09352968 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.5617073 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.11359765 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11359765 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1835056 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22

0.08125581 = sum of:
  0.029473973 = product of:
    0.117895894 = sum of:
      0.117895894 = weight(_text_:authors in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.117895894 = score(doc=4633,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.49350607 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.051781833 = sum of:
    0.02338242 = weight(_text_:j in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02338242 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052402776 = queryNorm
        0.14042683 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    0.028399412 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028399412 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1835056 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052402776 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX. Design/methodology/approach The authors perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, platform offers for books. The authors use two distinct data sets of books. On the one hand, the authors analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other hand, the authors use Clarivate's Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com's capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, the authors compare the findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX. Findings Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries, such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, the authors find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. The comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools. Practical implications This study targets different audience which can benefit from the findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool. Originality/value This is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com's functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via PlumX.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.079768166 = sum of:
  0.0150408745 = product of:
    0.060163498 = sum of:
      0.060163498 = weight(_text_:authors in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060163498 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.06472729 = sum of:
    0.029228024 = weight(_text_:j in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029228024 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052402776 = queryNorm
        0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.035499264 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035499264 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1835056 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052402776 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)

Abstract

Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50

0.07151321 = sum of:
  0.048130795 = product of:
    0.19252318 = sum of:
      0.19252318 = weight(_text_:authors in 5066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19252318 = score(doc=5066,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = 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)
  0.02338242 = product of:
    0.04676484 = sum of:
      0.04676484 = weight(_text_:j in 5066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04676484 = score(doc=5066,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.28085366 = fieldWeight in 5066, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, 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

0.06879864 = sum of:
  0.017016808 = product of:
    0.06806723 = sum of:
      0.06806723 = weight(_text_:authors in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06806723 = score(doc=4051,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.28492588 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.051781833 = sum of:
    0.02338242 = weight(_text_:j in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02338242 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052402776 = queryNorm
        0.14042683 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.028399412 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028399412 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1835056 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052402776 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)

Abstract

Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.06551052 = sum of:
  0.04421096 = product of:
    0.17684384 = sum of:
      0.17684384 = weight(_text_:authors in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17684384 = score(doc=853,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = 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)
  0.021299558 = product of:
    0.042599116 = sum of:
      0.042599116 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042599116 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1835056 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = 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

0.0645476 = sum of:
  0.029473973 = product of:
    0.117895894 = sum of:
      0.117895894 = weight(_text_:authors in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.117895894 = score(doc=81,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.49350607 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.035073627 = product of:
    0.07014725 = sum of:
      0.07014725 = weight(_text_:j in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07014725 = score(doc=81,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.42128047 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Papers written by several authors can be classified according to the countries of the author affiliations. The empirical part of this paper consists of two datasets. One dataset consists of 1,035 papers retrieved via the search "pedagog*" in the years 2004 and 2005 (up to October) in Academic Search Elite which is a case where phi(m) = the number of papers with m =1, 2,3 ... authors is decreasing, hence most of the papers have a low number of authors. Here we find that #, m = the number of times a country occurs j times in a m-authored paper, j =1, ..., m-1 is decreasing and that # m, m is much higher than all the other #j, m values. The other dataset consists of 3,271 papers retrieved via the search "enzyme" in the year 2005 (up to October) in the same database which is a case of a non-decreasing phi(m): most papers have 3 or 4 authors and we even find many papers with a much higher number of authors. In this case we show again that # m, m is much higher than the other #j, m values but that #j, m is not decreasing anymore in j =1, ..., m-1, although #1, m is (apart from # m, m) the largest number amongst the #j,m. The combinatorial part gives a proof of the fact that #j,m decreases for j = 1, m-1, supposing that all cases are equally possible. This shows that the first dataset is more conform with this model than the second dataset. Explanations for these findings are given. From the data we also find the (we think: new) distribution of number of papers with n =1, 2,3,... countries (i.e. where there are n different countries involved amongst the m (a n) authors of a paper): a fast decreasing function e.g. as a power law with a very large Lotka exponent.

0.061747774 = sum of:
  0.04421096 = product of:
    0.17684384 = sum of:
      0.17684384 = weight(_text_:authors in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17684384 = score(doc=3161,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = 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)
  0.017536815 = product of:
    0.03507363 = sum of:
      0.03507363 = weight(_text_:j in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03507363 = score(doc=3161,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, 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.

0.060291648 = sum of:
  0.042542018 = product of:
    0.17016807 = sum of:
      0.17016807 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17016807 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = 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)
  0.017749632 = product of:
    0.035499264 = sum of:
      0.035499264 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035499264 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1835056 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = 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

0.057895716 = sum of:
  0.0403589 = product of:
    0.1614356 = sum of:
      0.1614356 = weight(_text_:authors in 7171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1614356 = score(doc=7171,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.67576104 = fieldWeight in 7171, 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=7171)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017536815 = product of:
    0.03507363 = sum of:
      0.03507363 = weight(_text_:j in 7171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03507363 = score(doc=7171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 7171, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7171)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of a study, conducted at Kansas State University Library, to investigate the possibility of using DIALOG's RANK command to generate lists of prominent authors for use in cocitation studies. The emerging and rapidly expanding field of biodiversity was chosen and an online search of SCISEARCH (DIALOG File 34) was conducted to generate a list of potential authors to be used in the study. The RANK command was used to generate a ranked list of those authors cited in the retrieved documents. Results indicate that RANK does not effectively retrieve a quality set of prominent authors for use in cocitation studies. Highly cited authors of general texts of biodiversity cause the derived author map to present a misaligned picture of specialization within the field. Concludes that, by limiting citations to periodical articles only, a clearer and more accurate picture of the field should emerge

0.057895716 = sum of:
  0.0403589 = product of:
    0.1614356 = sum of:
      0.1614356 = weight(_text_:authors in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1614356 = score(doc=1080,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = 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)
  0.017536815 = product of:
    0.03507363 = sum of:
      0.03507363 = weight(_text_:j in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03507363 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, 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.

0.05715603 = sum of:
  0.042542018 = product of:
    0.17016807 = sum of:
      0.17016807 = weight(_text_:authors in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17016807 = score(doc=3231,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 3231, 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=3231)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.014614012 = product of:
    0.029228024 = sum of:
      0.029228024 = weight(_text_:j in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029228024 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.

0.054628894 = sum of:
  0.029779412 = product of:
    0.11911765 = sum of:
      0.11911765 = weight(_text_:authors in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11911765 = score(doc=3030,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = 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)
  0.024849484 = product of:
    0.049698967 = sum of:
      0.049698967 = weight(_text_:22 in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049698967 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1835056 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = 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

0.052561432 = sum of:
  0.031261873 = product of:
    0.12504749 = sum of:
      0.12504749 = weight(_text_:authors in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12504749 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = 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)
  0.021299558 = product of:
    0.042599116 = sum of:
      0.042599116 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042599116 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1835056 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = 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

0.051153332 = sum of:
  0.02605156 = product of:
    0.10420624 = sum of:
      0.10420624 = weight(_text_:authors in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10420624 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = 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)
  0.02510177 = product of:
    0.05020354 = sum of:
      0.05020354 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05020354 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1835056 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = 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

0.048798688 = sum of:
  0.031261873 = product of:
    0.12504749 = sum of:
      0.12504749 = weight(_text_:authors in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12504749 = score(doc=3765,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = 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)
  0.017536815 = product of:
    0.03507363 = sum of:
      0.03507363 = weight(_text_:j in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03507363 = score(doc=3765,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 3765, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, 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.

0.0484237 = sum of:
  0.018049048 = product of:
    0.07219619 = sum of:
      0.07219619 = weight(_text_:authors in 3464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07219619 = score(doc=3464,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3464, 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=3464)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.030374654 = product of:
    0.060749307 = sum of:
      0.060749307 = weight(_text_:j in 3464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060749307 = score(doc=3464,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.3648396 = fieldWeight in 3464, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3464)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The discrete Lotka power function describes the number of sources (e.g., authors) with n = 1, 2, 3, ... items (e.g., publications). As in econometrics, informetrics theory requires functions of a continuous variable j, replacing the discrete variable n. Now j represents item densities instead of number of items. The continuous Lotka power function describes the density of sources with item density j. The discrete Lotka function one obtains from data, obtained empirically; the continuous Lotka function is the one needed when one wants to apply Lotkaian informetrics, i.e., to determine properties that can be derived from the (continuous) model. It is, hence, important to know the relations between the two models. We show that the exponents of the discrete Lotka function (if not too high, i.e., within limits encountered in practice) and of the continuous Lotka function are approximately the same. This is important to know in applying theoretical results (from the continuous model), derived from practical data.

0.04682477 = sum of:
  0.02552521 = product of:
    0.10210084 = sum of:
      0.10210084 = weight(_text_:authors in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10210084 = score(doc=2751,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = 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)
  0.021299558 = product of:
    0.042599116 = sum of:
      0.042599116 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042599116 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1835056 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = 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