Search (433 results, page 1 of 22)

0.09543716 = product of:
  0.19087432 = sum of:
    0.19087432 = sum of:
      0.09125608 = weight(_text_:f in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09125608 = score(doc=3690,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.4403713 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
      0.09961824 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09961824 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = 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

0.06499585 = sum of:
  0.043863624 = product of:
    0.1754545 = sum of:
      0.1754545 = weight(_text_:authors in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1754545 = score(doc=853,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = 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)
  0.021132221 = product of:
    0.042264443 = sum of:
      0.042264443 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042264443 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = 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

0.05981798 = sum of:
  0.042207796 = product of:
    0.16883118 = sum of:
      0.16883118 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16883118 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = 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)
  0.017610185 = product of:
    0.03522037 = sum of:
      0.03522037 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03522037 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = 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

0.05419971 = sum of:
  0.029545454 = product of:
    0.11818182 = sum of:
      0.11818182 = weight(_text_:authors in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11818182 = score(doc=3030,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = 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)
  0.024654258 = product of:
    0.049308516 = sum of:
      0.049308516 = weight(_text_:22 in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049308516 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = 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

0.052701503 = sum of:
  0.025324676 = product of:
    0.101298705 = sum of:
      0.101298705 = weight(_text_:authors in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101298705 = score(doc=737,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 737, 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=737)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.027376825 = product of:
    0.05475365 = sum of:
      0.05475365 = weight(_text_:f in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05475365 = score(doc=737,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study investigates a range of metrics available when a nanoscience and nanotechnology article is published to see which metrics correlate more with the number of citations to the article. It also introduces the degree of internationality of journals and references as new metrics for this purpose. The journal impact factor; the impact of references; the internationality of authors, journals, and references; and the number of authors, institutions, and references were all calculated for papers published in nanoscience and nanotechnology journals in the Web of Science from 2007 to 2009. Using a zero-inflated negative binomial regression model on the data set, the impact factor of the publishing journal and the citation impact of the cited references were found to be the most effective determinants of citation counts in all four time periods. In the entire 2007 to 2009 period, apart from journal internationality and author numbers and internationality, all other predictor variables had significant effects on citation counts.

0.052701503 = sum of:
  0.025324676 = product of:
    0.101298705 = sum of:
      0.101298705 = weight(_text_:authors in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101298705 = score(doc=1141,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 1141, 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=1141)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.027376825 = product of:
    0.05475365 = sum of:
      0.05475365 = weight(_text_:f in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05475365 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 1141, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1141)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

International collaboration is being heralded as the hallmark of contemporary scientific production. Yet little quantitative evidence has portrayed the landscape and trends of such collaboration. To this end, 14,000,000 documents indexed in Thomson Reuters's Web of Science (WoS) were studied to provide a state-of-the-art description of scientific collaborations across the world. The results indicate that the number of authors in the largest research teams have not significantly grown during the past decade; however, the number of smaller research teams has seen significant increases in growth. In terms of composition, the largest teams have become more diverse than the latter teams and tend more toward interinstitutional and international collaboration. Investigating the size of teams showed large variation between fields. Mapping scientific cooperation at the country level reveals that Western countries situated at the core of the map are extensively cooperating with each other. High-impact institutions are significantly more collaborative than others. This work should inform policy makers, administrators, and those interested in the progression of scientific collaboration.

0.052701503 = sum of:
  0.025324676 = product of:
    0.101298705 = sum of:
      0.101298705 = weight(_text_:authors in 5388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101298705 = score(doc=5388,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 5388, 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=5388)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.027376825 = product of:
    0.05475365 = sum of:
      0.05475365 = weight(_text_:f in 5388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05475365 = score(doc=5388,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 5388, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5388)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the significant development of China's economy and scientific activity, its scientific publication activity is experiencing a period of rapid growth. However, measuring China's research output remains a challenge because Chinese scholars may publish their research in either international or national journals, yet no bibliometric database covers both the Chinese and English scientific literature. The purpose of this study is to compare Web of Science (WoS) with a Chinese bibliometric database in terms of authors and their performance, demonstrate the extent of the overlap between the two groups of Chinese most productive authors in both international and Chinese bibliometric databases, and determine how different disciplines may affect this overlap. The results of this study indicate that Chinese bibliometric databases, or a combination of WoS and Chinese bibliometric databases, should be used to evaluate Chinese research performance except in the few disciplines in which Chinese research performance could be assessed using WoS only.

0.052659437 = sum of:
  0.029845417 = product of:
    0.119381666 = sum of:
      0.119381666 = weight(_text_:authors in 2388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.119381666 = score(doc=2388,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 2388, 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=2388)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02281402 = product of:
    0.04562804 = sum of:
      0.04562804 = weight(_text_:f in 2388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04562804 = score(doc=2388,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 2388, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2388)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To study the structure of Iranian chemistry research, we identified 43 Iranian and international chemists who were highly cited in 7,682 Iranian chemistry publications (defined as an article with at least one Iranian author address) indexed in Science Citation Index (SciSearch) between 1990 and 2006, inclusive. We collected cocitation data for these authors from the entire SciSearch file (Dialog, File 34) over the time period. A principal components analysis identified seven interrelated factors accounting for 78% of the variance in the cocitation matrix. Iranian and international authors tended to load on separate factors. Three factors - synthesis of carbonyl compounds, solvent-free synthesis of organic compounds and oxidation of organic compounds - had an inter-correlation of 0.3 or higher. Physical organic chemistry and ionophores (a mixed factor of Iranian and international authors) connected at a lower value, while crown ethers and analytical chemistry were essentially uncorrelated. The PFNet structure maintained the topical factor groupings and Iranian and international authors tended to appear in separate subnetworks. Geographic and institutional influences, apparently relating in part to institutional affiliation and in part to restricted research topics, appear to underlie the primary structural features of Iranian chemistry in this time period.

0.052659437 = sum of:
  0.029845417 = product of:
    0.119381666 = sum of:
      0.119381666 = weight(_text_:authors in 4370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.119381666 = score(doc=4370,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = 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)
  0.02281402 = product of:
    0.04562804 = sum of:
      0.04562804 = weight(_text_:f in 4370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04562804 = score(doc=4370,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 4370, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, 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.

0.052659437 = sum of:
  0.029845417 = product of:
    0.119381666 = sum of:
      0.119381666 = weight(_text_:authors in 3106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.119381666 = score(doc=3106,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 3106, 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=3106)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02281402 = product of:
    0.04562804 = sum of:
      0.04562804 = weight(_text_:f in 3106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04562804 = score(doc=3106,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 3106, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3106)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper we analyze a major part of the research output of the Networked Knowledge Organization Systems (NKOS) community in the period 2000 to 2015 from a network analytical perspective. We fo- cus on the paper output presented at the European NKOS workshops in the last 15 years. Our open dataset, the "NKOS bibliography", includes 14 workshop agendas (ECDL 2000-2010, TPDL 2011-2015) and 4 special issues on NKOS (2001, 2004, 2006 and 2015) which cover 171 papers with 218 distinct authors in total. A focus of the analysis is the visualization of co-authorship networks in this interdisciplinary eld. We used standard network analytic measures like degree and betweenness centrality to de- scribe the co-authorship distribution in our NKOS dataset. We can see in our dataset that 15% (with degree=0) of authors had no co-authorship with others and 53% of them had a maximum of 3 cooperations with other authors. 32% had at least 4 co-authors for all of their papers. The NKOS co-author network in the "NKOS bibliography" is a typical co- authorship network with one relatively large component, many smaller components and many isolated co-authorships or triples.

0.052659437 = sum of:
  0.029845417 = product of:
    0.119381666 = sum of:
      0.119381666 = weight(_text_:authors in 3798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.119381666 = score(doc=3798,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = 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)
  0.02281402 = product of:
    0.04562804 = sum of:
      0.04562804 = weight(_text_:f in 3798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04562804 = score(doc=3798,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 3798, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, 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.

0.05214849 = sum of:
  0.031016268 = product of:
    0.12406507 = sum of:
      0.12406507 = weight(_text_:authors in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12406507 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = 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)
  0.021132221 = product of:
    0.042264443 = sum of:
      0.042264443 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042264443 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = 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

0.05075145 = sum of:
  0.025846891 = product of:
    0.103387564 = sum of:
      0.103387564 = weight(_text_:authors in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.103387564 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = 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)
  0.02490456 = product of:
    0.04980912 = sum of:
      0.04980912 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04980912 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = 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

0.05075145 = sum of:
  0.025846891 = product of:
    0.103387564 = sum of:
      0.103387564 = weight(_text_:authors in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.103387564 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = 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)
  0.02490456 = product of:
    0.04980912 = sum of:
      0.04980912 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04980912 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.049874082 = product of:
  0.099748164 = sum of:
    0.099748164 = sum of:
      0.064527795 = weight(_text_:f in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064527795 = score(doc=1934,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.31138954 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
      0.03522037 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03522037 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Um sich einer Antwort auf die Frage anzunähern, welche Bedeutung der Nachlass eines Wissenschaftlers wie jener Paul F. Lazarsfelds (mit zahlreichen noch unveröffentlichten Schriften) für die aktuelle Forschung haben könne, kann untersucht werden, wie häufig dieser Wissenschaftler zitiert wird. Wenn ein Autor zitiert wird, wird er auch genutzt. Wird er über einen langen Zeitraum oft genutzt, ist vermutlich auch die Auseinandersetzung mit seinem Nachlass von Nutzen. Außerdem kann aufgrund der Zitierungen festgestellt werden, was aus dem Lebenswerk eines Wissenschaftlers für die aktuelle Forschung relevant erscheint. Daraus können die vordringlichen Fragestellungen in der Bearbeitung des Nachlasses abgeleitet werden. Die Aufgabe für die folgende Untersuchung lautete daher: Wie oft wird Paul F. Lazarsfeld zitiert? Dabei interessierte auch: Wer zitiert wo? Die Untersuchung wurde mit Hilfe der Meta-Datenbank "ISI Web of Knowledge" durchgeführt. In dieser wurde im "Web of Science" mit dem Werkzeug "Cited Reference Search" nach dem zitierten Autor (Cited Author) "Lazarsfeld P*" gesucht. Diese Suche ergab 1535 Referenzen (References). Werden alle Referenzen gewählt, führt dies zu 4839 Ergebnissen (Results). Dabei wurden die Datenbanken SCI-Expanded, SSCI und A&HCI verwendet. Bei dieser Suche wurden die Publikationsjahre 1941-2008 analysiert. Vor 1956 wurden allerdings nur sehr wenige Zitate gefunden: 1946 fünf, ansonsten maximal drei, 1942-1944 und 1949 überhaupt keines. Zudem ist das Jahr 2008 noch lange nicht zu Ende. (Es gab jedoch schon vor Ende März 24 Zitate!)

Date

22. 6.2008 12:54:12

0.04866091 = sum of:
  0.025846891 = product of:
    0.103387564 = sum of:
      0.103387564 = weight(_text_:authors in 1727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.103387564 = score(doc=1727,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 1727, 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=1727)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02281402 = product of:
    0.04562804 = sum of:
      0.04562804 = weight(_text_:f in 1727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04562804 = score(doc=1727,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 1727, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1727)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study examines whether there are some general trends across subject fields regarding the factors affecting the number of citations of articles, focusing especially on those factors that are not directly related to the quality or content of articles (extrinsic factors). For this purpose, from 6 selected subject fields (condensed matter physics, inorganic and nuclear chemistry, electric and electronic engineering, biochemistry and molecular biology, physiology, and gastroenterology), original articles published in the same year were sampled (n?=?230-240 for each field). Then, the citation counts received by the articles in relatively long citation windows (6 and 11 years after publication) were predicted by negative binomial multiple regression (NBMR) analysis for each field. Various article features about author collaboration, cited references, visibility, authors' achievements (measured by past publications and citedness), and publishing journals were considered as the explanatory variables of NBMR. Some generality across the fields was found with regard to the selected predicting factors and the degree of significance of these predictors. The Price index was the strongest predictor of citations, and number of references was the next. The effects of number of authors and authors' achievement measures were rather weak.

0.048509046 = product of:
  0.09701809 = sum of:
    0.09701809 = sum of:
      0.05475365 = weight(_text_:f in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05475365 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
      0.042264443 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042264443 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = 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

0.048509046 = product of:
  0.09701809 = sum of:
    0.09701809 = sum of:
      0.05475365 = weight(_text_:f in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05475365 = score(doc=1639,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 1639, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1639)
      0.042264443 = weight(_text_:22 in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042264443 = score(doc=1639,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1639, 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=1639)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

21. 1.2015 14:55:22

0.048509046 = product of:
  0.09701809 = sum of:
    0.09701809 = sum of:
      0.05475365 = weight(_text_:f in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05475365 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
      0.042264443 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042264443 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

0.046456896 = sum of:
  0.025324676 = product of:
    0.101298705 = sum of:
      0.101298705 = weight(_text_:authors in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101298705 = score(doc=2751,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = 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)
  0.021132221 = product of:
    0.042264443 = sum of:
      0.042264443 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042264443 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = 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