-
Milard, B.; Pitarch, Y.: Egocentric cocitation networks and scientific papers destinies (2023)
0.11
0.111355156 = sum of:
0.025439564 = product of:
0.10175826 = sum of:
0.10175826 = weight(_text_:authors in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10175826 = score(doc=918,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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)
0.085915595 = sum of:
0.043459415 = weight(_text_:b in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043459415 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
0.04245618 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04245618 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
- Abstract
- To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics.
- Date
- 21. 3.2023 19:22:14
-
Chen, C.: CiteSpace II : detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature (2006)
0.09
0.086586736 = sum of:
0.014990407 = product of:
0.05996163 = sum of:
0.05996163 = weight(_text_:authors in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05996163 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.07159633 = sum of:
0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03621618 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
0.03538015 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03538015 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
- Abstract
- This article describes the latest development of a generic approach to detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. The work makes substantial theoretical and methodological contributions to progressive knowledge domain visualization. A specialty is conceptualized and visualized as a time-variant duality between two fundamental concepts in information science: research fronts and intellectual bases. A research front is defined as an emergent and transient grouping of concepts and underlying research issues. The intellectual base of a research front is its citation and co-citation footprint in scientific literature - an evolving network of scientific publications cited by research-front concepts. Kleinberg's (2002) burst-detection algorithm is adapted to identify emergent research-front concepts. Freeman's (1979) betweenness centrality metric is used to highlight potential pivotal points of paradigm shift over time. Two complementary visualization views are designed and implemented: cluster views and time-zone views. The contributions of the approach are that (a) the nature of an intellectual base is algorithmically and temporally identified by emergent research-front terms, (b) the value of a co-citation cluster is explicitly interpreted in terms of research-front concepts, and (c) visually prominent and algorithmically detected pivotal points substantially reduce the complexity of a visualized network. The modeling and visualization process is implemented in CiteSpace II, a Java application, and applied to the analysis of two research fields: mass extinction (1981-2004) and terrorism (1990-2003). Prominent trends and pivotal points in visualized networks were verified in collaboration with domain experts, who are the authors of pivotal-point articles. Practical implications of the work are discussed. A number of challenges and opportunities for future studies are identified.
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 16:11:05
-
Mukherjee, B.: Do open-access journals in library and information science have any scholarly impact? : a bibliometric study of selected open-access journals using Google Scholar (2009)
0.09
0.086586736 = sum of:
0.014990407 = product of:
0.05996163 = sum of:
0.05996163 = weight(_text_:authors in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05996163 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.07159633 = sum of:
0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03621618 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
0.03538015 = weight(_text_:22 in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03538015 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2745, 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=2745)
- Abstract
- Using 17 fully open-access journals published uninterruptedly during 2000 to 2004 in the field of library and information science, the present study investigates the impact of these open-access journals in terms of quantity of articles published, subject distribution of the articles, synchronous and diachronous impact factor, immediacy index, and journals' and authors' self-citation. The results indicate that during this 5-year publication period, there are as many as 1,636 articles published by these journals. At the same time, the articles have received a total of 8,591 Web citations during a 7-year citation period. Eight of 17 journals have received more than 100 citations. First Monday received the highest number of citations; however, the average number of citations per article was the highest in D-Lib Magazine. The value of the synchronous impact factor varies from 0.6989 to 1.0014 during 2002 to 2005, and the diachronous impact factor varies from 1.472 to 2.487 during 2000 to 2004. The range of the immediacy index varies between 0.0714 and 1.395. D-Lib Magazine has an immediacy index value above 0.5 in all the years whereas the immediacy index value varies from year to year for the other journals. When the citations of sample articles were analyzed according to source, it was found that 40.32% of the citations came from full-text articles, followed by 33.35% from journal articles. The percentage of journals' self-citation was only 6.04%.
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 17:54:59
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.09
0.086251274 = product of:
0.17250255 = sum of:
0.17250255 = sum of:
0.07243236 = weight(_text_:b in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07243236 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.3914457 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.10007018 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10007018 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, 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=3925)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:22:28
-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.08
0.08409272 = sum of:
0.026815655 = product of:
0.10726262 = sum of:
0.10726262 = weight(_text_:authors in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10726262 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.45050737 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.057277065 = sum of:
0.028972944 = weight(_text_:b in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028972944 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.02830412 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02830412 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, 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=5171)
- Abstract
- Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
- Date
- 9. 7.2006 10:22:35
-
Cronin, B.; Snyder, H.; Atkins, H.: Comparative citation rankings of authors in mongraphic and journal literature : a study of sociology (1997)
0.07
0.06732446 = sum of:
0.041973136 = product of:
0.16789255 = sum of:
0.16789255 = weight(_text_:authors in 4709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.16789255 = score(doc=4709,freq=8.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.70515555 = fieldWeight in 4709, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4709)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.025351325 = product of:
0.05070265 = sum of:
0.05070265 = weight(_text_:b in 4709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05070265 = score(doc=4709,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 4709, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4709)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Describes a study which examined the scholarly literature of sociology. Tens of thousands of references from monographs and leading academic journals were analyzed. The relative rankings of authors who were highly cited in the monographic literature did not change in the journal literature of the same period. However, there was only a small overlap between the most highly cited authors based on the journal sample and those based on the monograph sample. The lack of correlation suggests that there may be 2 distinct populations of highly cited authors
-
Siddiqui, M.A.: ¬A bibliometric study of authorship characteristics in four international information science journals (1997)
0.07
0.065290704 = sum of:
0.044062614 = product of:
0.17625046 = sum of:
0.17625046 = weight(_text_:authors in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.17625046 = score(doc=853,freq=12.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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)
0.02122809 = product of:
0.04245618 = sum of:
0.04245618 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04245618 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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
-
Chua, A.Y.K.; Yang, C.C.: ¬The shift towards multi-disciplinarity in information science (2008)
0.06
0.06195319 = sum of:
0.040223483 = product of:
0.16089393 = sum of:
0.16089393 = weight(_text_:authors in 2389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.16089393 = score(doc=2389,freq=10.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.67576104 = fieldWeight in 2389, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2389)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.021729708 = product of:
0.043459415 = sum of:
0.043459415 = weight(_text_:b in 2389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043459415 = score(doc=2389,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 2389, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2389)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article analyzes the collaboration trends, authorship and keywords of all research articles published in the Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST). Comparing the articles between two 10-year periods, namely, 1988-1997 and 1998-2007, the three-fold objectives are to analyze the shifts in (a) authors' collaboration trends (b) top authors, their affiliations as well as the pattern of coauthorship among them, and (c) top keywords and the subdisciplines from which they emerge. The findings reveal a distinct tendency towards collaboration among authors, with external collaborations becoming more prevalent. Top authors have grown in diversity from those being affiliated predominantly with library/information-related departments to include those from information systems management, information technology, businesss, and the humanities. Amid heterogeneous clusters of collaboration among top authors, strongly connected cross-disciplinary coauthor pairs have become more prevalent. Correspondingly, the distribution of top keywords' occurrences that leans heavily on core information science has shifted towards other subdisciplines such as information technology and sociobehavioral science.
-
Milard, B.; Tanguy, L.: Citations in scientific texts : do social relations matter? (2018)
0.06
0.06188743 = sum of:
0.031156976 = product of:
0.1246279 = sum of:
0.1246279 = weight(_text_:authors in 4547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1246279 = score(doc=4547,freq=6.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 4547, 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=4547)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.03073045 = product of:
0.0614609 = sum of:
0.0614609 = weight(_text_:b in 4547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0614609 = score(doc=4547,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.3321527 = fieldWeight in 4547, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4547)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article presents an investigation of the role of social relations in the writing of scientific articles through the study of in-text citations. Does the fact that the author of an article knows the author whose work he or she cites have an impact on the context of the citation? Because citations are commonly used as criteria for research evaluation, it is important to question their social background to better understand how it impacts textual features. We studied a collection of science articles (N?=?123) from 5 disciplines and interviewed their authors (N?=?84) to: (a) identify the social relations between citing and cited authors; and (b) measure the correlation between a set of features related to in-text citations (N?=?6,956) and the identified social relations. Our pioneering work, mixing sociological and linguistic results, shows that social relations between authors can partly explain the variations of citations in terms of frequency, position and textual context.
-
Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016)
0.06
0.060507365 = sum of:
0.042399276 = product of:
0.1695971 = sum of:
0.1695971 = weight(_text_:authors in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1695971 = score(doc=3231,freq=16.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.01810809 = product of:
0.03621618 = sum of:
0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03621618 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.
-
Castanha, R.C.G.; Wolfram, D.: ¬The domain of knowledge organization : a bibliometric analysis of prolific authors and their intellectual space (2018)
0.06
0.06008935 = sum of:
0.042399276 = product of:
0.1695971 = sum of:
0.1695971 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1695971 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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)
0.017690076 = product of:
0.03538015 = sum of:
0.03538015 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03538015 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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
-
Li, J.; Shi, D.: Sleeping beauties in genius work : when were they awakened? (2016)
0.06
0.05886505 = product of:
0.1177301 = sum of:
0.1177301 = sum of:
0.07527392 = weight(_text_:b in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07527392 = score(doc=2647,freq=6.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.40680233 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
0.04245618 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04245618 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- "Genius work," proposed by Avramescu, refers to scientific articles whose citations grow exponentially in an extended period, for example, over 50 years. Such articles were defined as "sleeping beauties" by van Raan, who quantitatively studied the phenomenon of delayed recognition. However, the criteria adopted by van Raan at times are not applicable and may confer recognition prematurely. To revise such deficiencies, this paper proposes two new criteria, which are applicable (but not limited) to exponential citation curves. We searched for genius work among articles of Nobel Prize laureates during the period of 1901-2012 on the Web of Science, finding 25 articles of genius work out of 21,438 papers including 10 (by van Raan's criteria) sleeping beauties and 15 nonsleeping-beauties. By our new criteria, two findings were obtained through empirical analysis: (a) the awakening periods for genius work depend on the increase rate b in the exponential function, and (b) lower b leads to a longer sleeping period.
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 14:13:32
-
Milard, B.: ¬The social circles behind scientific references : relationships between citing and cited authors in chemistry publications (2014)
0.06
0.057706684 = sum of:
0.035976976 = product of:
0.1439079 = sum of:
0.1439079 = weight(_text_:authors in 1539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1439079 = score(doc=1539,freq=8.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.60441905 = fieldWeight in 1539, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1539)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.021729708 = product of:
0.043459415 = sum of:
0.043459415 = weight(_text_:b in 1539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043459415 = score(doc=1539,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 1539, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1539)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper provides a better understanding of the implications of researchers' social networks in bibliographic references. Using a set of chemistry papers and conducting interviews with their authors (n = 32), I characterize the type of relation the author has with the authors of the references contained in his/her paper (n = 3,623). I show that citation relationships do not always involve underlying personal exchanges and that unknown references are an essential component, revealing segmentations in scientific groups. The relationships implied by references are of various strengths and origins. Several inclusive social circles are then identified: co-authors, close acquaintances, colleagues, invisible colleges, peers, contactables, and strangers. I conclude that publication is a device that contributes to a relatively stable distribution among the various social circles that structure scientific sociability.
-
Rostaing, H.; Barts, N.; Léveillé, V.: Bibliometrics: representation instrument of the multidisciplinary positioning of a scientific area : Implementation for an Advisory Scientific Committee (2007)
0.06
0.057277065 = product of:
0.11455413 = sum of:
0.11455413 = sum of:
0.05794589 = weight(_text_:b in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05794589 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
0.05660824 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05660824 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 30.12.2007 11:22:39
- Source
- ¬La interdisciplinariedad y la transdisciplinariedad en la organización del conocimiento científico : actas del VIII Congreso ISKO-España, León, 18, 19 y 20 de Abril de 2007 : Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in the organization of scientific knowledge. Ed.: B. Rodriguez Bravo u. M.L Alvite Diez
-
Scholarly metrics under the microscope : from citation analysis to academic auditing (2015)
0.06
0.057277065 = product of:
0.11455413 = sum of:
0.11455413 = sum of:
0.05794589 = weight(_text_:b in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05794589 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
0.05660824 = weight(_text_:22 in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05660824 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2017 17:12:50
- Editor
- Cronin, B. u. C.R. Sugimoto
-
Avramescu, A.: Teoria difuziei informatiei stiintifice (1997)
0.05
0.054445595 = sum of:
0.02967949 = product of:
0.11871796 = sum of:
0.11871796 = weight(_text_:authors in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11871796 = score(doc=3030,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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)
0.024766104 = product of:
0.04953221 = sum of:
0.04953221 = weight(_text_:22 in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04953221 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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
-
Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists (2006)
0.05
0.052957594 = sum of:
0.02398465 = product of:
0.0959386 = sum of:
0.0959386 = weight(_text_:authors in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0959386 = score(doc=196,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=196)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.028972944 = product of:
0.05794589 = sum of:
0.05794589 = weight(_text_:b in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05794589 = score(doc=196,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=196)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The authors apply a new bibliometric measure, the h-index (Hirsch, 2005), to the literature of information science. Faculty rankings based on raw citation counts are compared with those based on h-counts. There is a strong positive correlation between the two sets of rankings. It is shown how the h-index can be used to express the broad impact of a scholar's research output over time in more nuanced fashion than straight citation counts.
-
Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: Applying the author affiliation index to library and information science journals (2008)
0.05
0.052957594 = sum of:
0.02398465 = product of:
0.0959386 = sum of:
0.0959386 = weight(_text_:authors in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0959386 = score(doc=2361,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 2361, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2361)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.028972944 = product of:
0.05794589 = sum of:
0.05794589 = weight(_text_:b in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05794589 = score(doc=2361,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 2361, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2361)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The authors use a novel method - the Author Affiliation Index (AAI) - to determine whether faculty at the top-10 North American library and information science (LIS) programs have a disproportionate presence in the premier journals of the field. The study finds that LIS may be both too small and too interdisciplinary a domain for the AAI to provide reliable results.
-
Zhang, L.; Thijs, B.; Glänzel, W.: What does scientometrics share with other "metrics" sciences? (2013)
0.05
0.052957594 = sum of:
0.02398465 = product of:
0.0959386 = sum of:
0.0959386 = weight(_text_:authors in 960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0959386 = score(doc=960,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 960, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=960)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.028972944 = product of:
0.05794589 = sum of:
0.05794589 = weight(_text_:b in 960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05794589 = score(doc=960,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 960, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=960)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this article, the authors answer the question of whether the field of scientometrics/bibliometrics shares essential characteristics of "metrics" sciences. To achieve this objective, the citation network of seven selected metrics and their information environment is analyzed.
-
Ajiferuke, I.; Lu, K.; Wolfram, D.: ¬A comparison of citer and citation-based measure outcomes for multiple disciplines (2010)
0.05
0.052385066 = sum of:
0.031156976 = product of:
0.1246279 = sum of:
0.1246279 = weight(_text_:authors in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1246279 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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)
0.02122809 = product of:
0.04245618 = sum of:
0.04245618 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04245618 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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
