Search (448 results, page 1 of 23)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005) 0.09 
    0.09110482 = product of:
  0.18220964 = sum of:
    0.18220964 = sum of:
      0.09747675 = weight(_text_:g in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09747675 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
      0.0847329 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0847329 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18250333 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2007 17:02:22
  2. Egghe, L.: Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship (2008) 0.08 
    0.07764255 = sum of:
  0.01795047 = product of:
    0.07180188 = sum of:
      0.07180188 = weight(_text_:authors in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07180188 = score(doc=2004,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 2004, 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=2004)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.05969208 = product of:
    0.11938416 = sum of:
      0.11938416 = weight(_text_:g in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11938416 = score(doc=2004,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.60988986 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article studies the h-index (Hirsch index) and the g-index of authors, in case one counts authorship of the cited articles in a fractional way. There are two ways to do this: One counts the citations to these papers in a fractional way or one counts the ranks of the papers in a fractional way as credit for an author. In both cases, we define the fractional h- and g-indexes, and we present inequalities (both upper and lower bounds) between these fractional h- and g-indexes and their corresponding unweighted values (also involving, of course, the coauthorship distribution). Wherever applicable, examples and counterexamples are provided. In a concrete example (the publication citation list of the present author), we make explicit calculations of these fractional h- and g-indexes and show that they are not very different from the unweighted ones.
    Object
    g-index
  3. Abramo, G.; D'Angelo, C.A.; Viel, F.: Assessing the accuracy of the h- and g-indexes for measuring researchers' productivity (2013) 0.07 
    0.07244163 = sum of:
  0.01795047 = product of:
    0.07180188 = sum of:
      0.07180188 = weight(_text_:authors in 957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07180188 = score(doc=957,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 957, 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=957)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.054491162 = product of:
    0.108982325 = sum of:
      0.108982325 = weight(_text_:g in 957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.108982325 = score(doc=957,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.5567507 = fieldWeight in 957, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=957)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Bibliometric indicators are increasingly used in support of decisions about recruitment, career advancement, rewards, and selective funding for scientists. Given the importance of the applications, bibliometricians are obligated to carry out empirical testing of the robustness of the indicators, in simulations of real contexts. In this work, we compare the results of national-scale research assessments at the individual level, based on the following three different indexes: the h-index, the g-index, and "fractional scientific strength" (FSS), an indicator previously proposed by the authors. For each index, we construct and compare rankings lists of all Italian academic researchers working in the hard sciences during the period 2001-2005. The analysis quantifies the shifts in ranks that occur when researchers' productivity rankings by simple indicators such as the h- or g-indexes are compared with those by more accurate FSS.
    Object
    g-index
  4. Siddiqui, M.A.: ¬A bibliometric study of authorship characteristics in four international information science journals (1997) 0.07 
    0.06515271 = sum of:
  0.04396949 = product of:
    0.17587796 = sum of:
      0.17587796 = weight(_text_:authors in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17587796 = score(doc=853,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = 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)
  0.021183224 = product of:
    0.04236645 = sum of:
      0.04236645 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04236645 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18250333 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = 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
  5. Castanha, R.C.G.; Wolfram, D.: ¬The domain of knowledge organization : a bibliometric analysis of prolific authors and their intellectual space (2018) 0.06 
    0.059962355 = sum of:
  0.042309668 = product of:
    0.16923867 = sum of:
      0.16923867 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16923867 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = 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)
  0.017652689 = product of:
    0.035305377 = sum of:
      0.035305377 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035305377 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18250333 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = 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
  6. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.; Hooydonk, G. van: Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries : consequences for evaluation studies (2000) 0.06 
    0.055460315 = sum of:
  0.031091128 = product of:
    0.12436451 = sum of:
      0.12436451 = weight(_text_:authors in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12436451 = score(doc=4384,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 4384, 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=4384)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.024369188 = product of:
    0.048738375 = sum of:
      0.048738375 = weight(_text_:g in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048738375 = score(doc=4384,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    One aim of science evaluation studies is to determine quantitatively the contribution of different players (authors, departments, countries) to the whole system. This information is then used to study the evolution of the system, for instance to gauge the results of special national or international programs. Taking articles as our basic data, we want to determine the exact relative contribution of each coauthor or each country. These numbers are brought together to obtain country scores, or department scores, etc. It turns out, as we will show in this article, that different scoring methods can yield totally different rankings. Conseqeuntly, a ranking between countries, universities, research groups or authors, based on one particular accrediting methods does not contain an absolute truth about their relative importance
  7. Avramescu, A.: Teoria difuziei informatiei stiintifice (1997) 0.05 
    0.054330528 = sum of:
  0.029616764 = product of:
    0.118467055 = sum of:
      0.118467055 = weight(_text_:authors in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.118467055 = score(doc=3030,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = 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)
  0.024713762 = product of:
    0.049427524 = sum of:
      0.049427524 = weight(_text_:22 in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049427524 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18250333 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = 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
  8. Ajiferuke, I.; Lu, K.; Wolfram, D.: ¬A comparison of citer and citation-based measure outcomes for multiple disciplines (2010) 0.05 
    0.052274354 = sum of:
  0.031091128 = product of:
    0.12436451 = sum of:
      0.12436451 = weight(_text_:authors in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12436451 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = 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)
  0.021183224 = product of:
    0.04236645 = sum of:
      0.04236645 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04236645 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18250333 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = 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
  9. Zhang, Y.: ¬The impact of Internet-based electronic resources on formal scholarly communication in the area of library and information science : a citation analysis (1998) 0.05 
    0.050873943 = sum of:
  0.025909275 = product of:
    0.1036371 = sum of:
      0.1036371 = weight(_text_:authors in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1036371 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = 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)
  0.02496467 = product of:
    0.04992934 = sum of:
      0.04992934 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04992934 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18250333 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = 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
  10. Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015) 0.05 
    0.050873943 = sum of:
  0.025909275 = product of:
    0.1036371 = sum of:
      0.1036371 = weight(_text_:authors in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1036371 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = 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)
  0.02496467 = product of:
    0.04992934 = sum of:
      0.04992934 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04992934 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18250333 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = 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
  11. Cabanac, G.; Hartley, J.: Issues of work-life balance among JASIST authors and editors (2013) 0.05 
    0.049754985 = sum of:
  0.025385799 = product of:
    0.101543196 = sum of:
      0.101543196 = weight(_text_:authors in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101543196 = score(doc=996,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 996, 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=996)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.024369188 = product of:
    0.048738375 = sum of:
      0.048738375 = weight(_text_:g in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048738375 = score(doc=996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 996, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=996)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Many dedicated scientists reject the concept of maintaining a "work-life balance." They argue that work is actually a huge part of life. In the mind-set of these scientists, weekdays and weekends are equally appropriate for working on their research. Although we all have encountered such people, we may wonder how widespread this condition is with other scientists in our field. This brief communication probes work-life balance issues among JASIST authors and editors. We collected and examined the publication histories for 1,533 of the 2,402 articles published in JASIST between 2001 and 2012. Although there is no rush to submit, revise, or accept papers, we found that 11% of these events happened during weekends and that this trend has been increasing since 2005. Our findings suggest that working during the weekend may be one of the ways that scientists cope with the highly demanding era of "publish or perish." We hope that our findings will raise an awareness of the steady increases in work among scientists before it affects our work-life balance even more.
  12. Song, M.; Kim, S.Y.; Zhang, G.; Ding, Y.; Chambers, T.: Productivity and influence in bioinformatics : a bibliometric analysis using PubMed central (2014) 0.05 
    0.049754985 = sum of:
  0.025385799 = product of:
    0.101543196 = sum of:
      0.101543196 = weight(_text_:authors in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101543196 = score(doc=1202,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 1202, 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=1202)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.024369188 = product of:
    0.048738375 = sum of:
      0.048738375 = weight(_text_:g in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048738375 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Bioinformatics is a fast-growing field based on the optimal use of "big data" gathered in genomic, proteomics, and functional genomics research. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive and in-depth bibliometric analysis of the field of bioinformatics by extracting citation data from PubMed Central full-text. Citation data for the period 2000 to 2011, comprising 20,869 papers with 546,245 citations, was used to evaluate the productivity and influence of this emerging field. Four measures were used to identify productivity; most productive authors, most productive countries, most productive organizations, and most popular subject terms. Research impact was analyzed based on the measures of most cited papers, most cited authors, emerging stars, and leading organizations. Results show the overall trends between the periods 2000 to 2003 and 2004 to 2007 were dissimilar, while trends between the periods 2004 to 2007 and 2008 to 2011 were similar. In addition, the field of bioinformatics has undergone a significant shift, co-evolving with other biomedical disciplines.
  13. Camacho-Miñano, M.-del-Mar; Núñez-Nickel, M.: ¬The multilayered nature of reference selection (2009) 0.05 
    0.046569023 = sum of:
  0.025385799 = product of:
    0.101543196 = sum of:
      0.101543196 = weight(_text_:authors in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101543196 = score(doc=2751,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = 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)
  0.021183224 = product of:
    0.04236645 = sum of:
      0.04236645 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04236645 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18250333 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = 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
  14. Milard, B.; Pitarch, Y.: Egocentric cocitation networks and scientific papers destinies (2023) 0.05 
    0.046569023 = sum of:
  0.025385799 = product of:
    0.101543196 = sum of:
      0.101543196 = weight(_text_:authors in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101543196 = score(doc=918,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.021183224 = product of:
    0.04236645 = sum of:
      0.04236645 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04236645 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18250333 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics.
    Date
    21. 3.2023 19:22:14
  15. Manley, S.: Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics (2022) 0.05 
    0.045655977 = sum of:
  0.020942215 = product of:
    0.08376886 = sum of:
      0.08376886 = weight(_text_:authors in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08376886 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.024713762 = product of:
    0.049427524 = sum of:
      0.049427524 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049427524 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18250333 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article discusses how letters to the editor boost publishing metrics for journals and authors, and then examines letters published since 2015 in six elite journals, including the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. The initial findings identify some potentially anomalous use of letters and unusual self-citation patterns. The article proposes that Clarivate Analytics consider slightly reconfiguring the Journal Impact Factor to more fairly account for letters and that journals transparently explain their letter submission policies.
    Date
    6. 4.2022 19:22:26
  16. D'Angelo, C.A.; Giuffrida, C.; Abramo, G.: ¬A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments (2011) 0.05 
    0.04555241 = product of:
  0.09110482 = sum of:
    0.09110482 = sum of:
      0.048738375 = weight(_text_:g in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048738375 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 4190, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4190)
      0.04236645 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04236645 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18250333 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:06:52
  17. ¬Die deutsche Zeitschrift für Dokumentation, Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis von 1950 bis 2011 : eine vorläufige Bilanz in vier Abschnitten (2012) 0.05 
    0.04555241 = product of:
  0.09110482 = sum of:
    0.09110482 = sum of:
      0.048738375 = weight(_text_:g in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048738375 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.04236645 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04236645 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18250333 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2012 19:35:26
    Footnote
    Besteht aus 4 Teilen: Teil 1: Eden, D., A. Arndt, A. Hoffer, T. Raschke u. P. Schön: Die Nachrichten für Dokumentation in den Jahren 1950 bis 1962 (S.159-163). Teil 2: Brose, M., E. durst, D. Nitzsche, D. Veckenstedt u. R. Wein: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1963-1975 (S.164-170). Teil 3: Bösel, J., G. Ebert, P. Garz,, M. Iwanow u. B. Russ: Methoden und Ergebnisse einer statistischen Auswertung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1976 bis 1988 (S.171-174). Teil 4: Engelage, H., S. Jansen, R. Mertins, K. Redel u. S. Ring: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) / "Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis" (IWP) 1989-2011 (S.164-170).
  18. Shah, T.A.; Gul, S.; Gaur, R.C.: Authors self-citation behaviour in the field of Library and Information Science (2015) 0.05 
    0.045469433 = sum of:
  0.033112552 = product of:
    0.13245021 = sum of:
      0.13245021 = weight(_text_:authors in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13245021 = score(doc=2597,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.55747443 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.012356881 = product of:
    0.024713762 = sum of:
      0.024713762 = weight(_text_:22 in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024713762 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18250333 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the author self-citation behavior in the field of Library and Information Science. Various factors governing the author self-citation behavior have also been studied. Design/methodology/approach The 2012 edition of Social Science Citation Index was consulted for the selection of LIS journals. Under the subject heading "Information Science and Library Science" there were 84 journals and out of these 12 journals were selected for the study based on systematic sampling. The study was confined to original research and review articles that were published in select journals in the year 2009. The main reason to choose 2009 was to get at least five years (2009-2013) citation data from Web of Science Core Collection (excluding Book Citation Index) and SciELO Citation Index. A citation was treated as self-citation whenever one of the authors of citing and cited paper was common, i.e., the set of co-authors of the citing paper and that of the cited one are not disjoint. To minimize the risk of homonyms, spelling variances and misspelling in authors' names, the authors compared full author names in citing and cited articles. Findings A positive correlation between number of authors and total number of citations exists with no correlation between number of authors and number/share of self-citations, i.e., self-citations are not affected by the number of co-authors in a paper. Articles which are produced in collaboration attract more self-citations than articles produced by only one author. There is no statistically significant variation in citations counts (total and self-citations) in works that are result of different types of collaboration. A strong and statistically significant positive correlation exists between total citation count and frequency of self-citations. No relation could be ascertained between total citation count and proportion of self-citations. Authors tend to cite more of their recent works than the work of other authors. Total citation count and number of self-citations are positively correlated with the impact factor of source publication and correlation coefficient for total citations is much higher than that for self-citations. A negative correlation exhibits between impact factor and the share of self-citations. Of particular note is that the correlation in all the cases is of weak nature. Research limitations/implications The research provides an understanding of the author self-citations in the field of LIS. readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study. Originality/value Readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  19. Torres-Salinas, D.; Gorraiz, J.; Robinson-Garcia, N.: ¬The insoluble problems of books : what does Altmetric.com have to offer? (2018) 0.04 
    0.043435145 = sum of:
  0.029312994 = product of:
    0.11725198 = sum of:
      0.11725198 = weight(_text_:authors in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11725198 = score(doc=4633,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = 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)
  0.01412215 = product of:
    0.0282443 = sum of:
      0.0282443 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0282443 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18250333 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  20. Cabanac, G.: Shaping the landscape of research in information systems from the perspective of editorial boards : a scientometric study of 77 leading journals (2012) 0.04 
    0.042319655 = sum of:
  0.01795047 = product of:
    0.07180188 = sum of:
      0.07180188 = weight(_text_:authors in 242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07180188 = score(doc=242,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 242, 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=242)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.024369188 = product of:
    0.048738375 = sum of:
      0.048738375 = weight(_text_:g in 242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048738375 = score(doc=242,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 242, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=242)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Characteristics of the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology and 76 other journals listed in the InformationSystems category of the Journal Citation Reports-Science edition 2009 were analyzed. Besides reporting usual bibliographic indicators, we investigated the human cornerstone of any peer-reviewed journal: its editorial board. Demographic data about the 2,846 gatekeepers serving in information systems (IS) editorial boards were collected. We discuss various scientometric indicators supported by descriptive statistics. Our findings reflect the great variety of IS journals in terms of research output, author communities, editorial boards, and gatekeeper demographics (e.g., diversity in gender and location), seniority, authority, and degree of involvement in editorial boards. We believe that these results may help the general public and scholars (e.g., readers, authors, journal gatekeepers, policy makers) to revise and increase their knowledge of scholarly communication in the IS field. The EB_IS_2009 dataset supporting this scientometric study is released as online supplementary material to this article to foster further research on editorial boards.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 427
  • d 17
  • dk 1
  • m 1
  • ro 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 440
  • el 5
  • m 5
  • s 4
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications