Search (392 results, page 1 of 20)

0.14321917 = product of:
  0.28643835 = sum of:
    0.28643835 = sum of:
      0.18885049 = weight(_text_:v in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18885049 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.7535104 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
      0.097587846 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.097587846 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18016386 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)

0.081839524 = product of:
  0.16367905 = sum of:
    0.16367905 = sum of:
      0.10791456 = weight(_text_:v in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10791456 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.43057737 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
      0.055764485 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055764485 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18016386 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = 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

0.07644974 = sum of:
  0.029237112 = product of:
    0.11694845 = sum of:
      0.11694845 = weight(_text_:authors in 2566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11694845 = score(doc=2566,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 2566, 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=2566)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.047212623 = product of:
    0.094425246 = sum of:
      0.094425246 = weight(_text_:v in 2566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.094425246 = score(doc=2566,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.3767552 = fieldWeight in 2566, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2566)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We present a bibliometric study of a corpus of 839 bibliographic references about automatic indexing, covering the period 1956-2000. We analyse the distribution of authors and works, the obsolescence and its dispersion, and the distribution of the literature by topic, year, and source type. We conclude that: (i) there has been a constant interest on the part of researchers; (ii) the most studied topics were the techniques and methods employed and the general aspects of automatic indexing; (iii) the productivity of the authors does fit a Lotka distribution (Dmax=0.02 and critical value=0.054); (iv) the annual aging factor is 95%; and (v) the dispersion of the literature is low.

0.07549061 = sum of:
  0.041767307 = product of:
    0.16706923 = sum of:
      0.16706923 = weight(_text_:authors in 2769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16706923 = score(doc=2769,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 2769, 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=2769)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.033723302 = product of:
    0.067446604 = sum of:
      0.067446604 = weight(_text_:v in 2769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.067446604 = score(doc=2769,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.26911086 = fieldWeight in 2769, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2769)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Over the past few years, several major scientific fraud cases have shocked the scientific community. The number of retractions each year has also increased tremendously, especially in the biomedical field, and scientific misconduct accounts for more than half of those retractions. It is assumed that co-authors of retracted papers are affected by their colleagues' misconduct, and the aim of this study is to provide empirical evidence of the effect of retractions in biomedical research on co-authors' research careers. Using data from the Web of Science, we measured the productivity, impact, and collaboration of 1,123 co-authors of 293 retracted articles for a period of 5 years before and after the retraction. We found clear evidence that collaborators do suffer consequences of their colleagues' misconduct and that a retraction for fraud has higher consequences than a retraction for error. Our results also suggest that the extent of these consequences is closely linked with the ranking of co-authors on the retracted paper, being felt most strongly by first authors, followed by the last authors, with the impact is less important for middle authors.

0.07317745 = sum of:
  0.0147669725 = product of:
    0.05906789 = sum of:
      0.05906789 = weight(_text_:authors in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05906789 = score(doc=1237,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.058410477 = product of:
    0.116820954 = sum of:
      0.116820954 = weight(_text_:v in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.116820954 = score(doc=1237,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.46611372 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

0.07023983 = sum of:
  0.008860183 = product of:
    0.03544073 = sum of:
      0.03544073 = weight(_text_:authors in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03544073 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.15110476 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.06137964 = sum of:
    0.04046796 = weight(_text_:v in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04046796 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051448494 = queryNorm
        0.16146651 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.02091168 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02091168 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18016386 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051448494 = queryNorm
        0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)

Abstract

One of the solutions to help scientists filter the most relevant publications and, thus, to stay current on developments in their fields during the transition from "little science" to "big science", was the introduction of citation indexing as a Wellsian "World Brain" (Garfield, 1964) of scientific information: It is too much to expect a research worker to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the bibliographic descendants of antecedent papers. It would not be excessive to demand that the thorough scholar check all papers that have cited or criticized such papers, if they could be located quickly. The citation index makes this check practicable (Garfield, 1955, p. 108). In retrospective, citation indexing can be perceived as a pre-social web version of crowdsourcing, as it is based on the concept that the community of citing authors outperforms indexers in highlighting cognitive links between papers, particularly on the level of specific ideas and concepts (Garfield, 1983). Over the last 50 years, citation analysis and more generally, bibliometric methods, have developed from information retrieval tools to research evaluation metrics, where they are presumed to make scientific funding more efficient and effective (Moed, 2006). However, the dominance of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has also led to significant goal displacement (Merton, 1957) and the oversimplification of notions of "research productivity" and "scientific quality", creating adverse effects such as salami publishing, honorary authorships, citation cartels, and misuse of indicators (Binswanger, 2015; Cronin and Sugimoto, 2014; Frey and Osterloh, 2006; Haustein and Larivière, 2015; Weingart, 2005).

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.070041545 = product of:
  0.14008309 = sum of:
    0.14008309 = sum of:
      0.08093592 = weight(_text_:v in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08093592 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.32293302 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.05914717 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05914717 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18016386 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.068575606 = sum of:
  0.020883653 = product of:
    0.08353461 = sum of:
      0.08353461 = weight(_text_:authors in 5107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08353461 = score(doc=5107,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 5107, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5107)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.047691952 = product of:
    0.095383905 = sum of:
      0.095383905 = weight(_text_:v in 5107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.095383905 = score(doc=5107,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.38058025 = fieldWeight in 5107, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5107)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Journal articles constitute the core documents for the diffusion of knowledge in the natural sciences. It has been argued that the same is not true for the social sciences and humanities where knowledge is more often disseminated in monographs that are not indexed in the journal-based databases used for bibliometric analysis. Previous studies have made only partial assessments of the role played by both serials and other types of literature. The importance of journal literature in the various scientific fields has therefore not been systematically characterized. The authors address this issue by providing a systematic measurement of the role played by journal literature in the building of knowledge in both the natural sciences and engineering and the social sciences and humanities. Using citation data from the CD-ROM versions of the Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) databases from 1981 to 2000 (Thomson ISI, Philadelphia, PA), the authors quantify the share of citations to both serials and other types of literature. Variations in time and between fields are also analyzed. The results show that journal literature is increasingly important in the natural and social sciences, but that its role in the humanities is stagnant and has even tended to diminish slightly in the 1990s. Journal literature accounts for less than 50% of the citations in several disciplines of the social sciences and humanities; hence, special care should be used when using bibliometric indicators that rely only on journal literature.

0.06552834 = sum of:
  0.025060384 = product of:
    0.100241534 = sum of:
      0.100241534 = weight(_text_:authors in 2035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.100241534 = score(doc=2035,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 2035, 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=2035)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.04046796 = product of:
    0.08093592 = sum of:
      0.08093592 = weight(_text_:v in 2035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08093592 = score(doc=2035,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.32293302 = fieldWeight in 2035, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2035)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article provides the first historical analysis of the relationship between collaboration and scientific impact using three indicators of collaboration (number of authors, number of addresses, and number of countries) derived from articles published between 1900 and 2011. The results demonstrate that an increase in the number of authors leads to an increase in impact, from the beginning of the last century onward, and that this is not due simply to self-citations. A similar trend is also observed for the number of addresses and number of countries represented in the byline of an article. However, the constant inflation of collaboration since 1900 has resulted in diminishing citation returns: Larger and more diverse (in terms of institutional and country affiliation) teams are necessary to realize higher impact. The article concludes with a discussion of the potential causes of the impact gain in citations of collaborative papers.

0.06552834 = sum of:
  0.025060384 = product of:
    0.100241534 = sum of:
      0.100241534 = weight(_text_:authors in 5388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.100241534 = score(doc=5388,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = 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)
  0.04046796 = product of:
    0.08093592 = sum of:
      0.08093592 = weight(_text_:v in 5388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08093592 = score(doc=5388,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.32293302 = fieldWeight in 5388, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, 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.

0.06431753 = sum of:
  0.043405853 = product of:
    0.17362341 = sum of:
      0.17362341 = weight(_text_:authors in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17362341 = score(doc=853,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = 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)
  0.02091168 = product of:
    0.04182336 = sum of:
      0.04182336 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04182336 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18016386 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = 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

0.059300452 = sum of:
  0.025577148 = product of:
    0.10230859 = sum of:
      0.10230859 = weight(_text_:authors in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10230859 = score(doc=244,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 244, 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=244)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.033723302 = product of:
    0.067446604 = sum of:
      0.067446604 = weight(_text_:v in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.067446604 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.26911086 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.

0.059193708 = sum of:
  0.041767307 = product of:
    0.16706923 = sum of:
      0.16706923 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16706923 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = 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)
  0.017426401 = product of:
    0.034852803 = sum of:
      0.034852803 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034852803 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18016386 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = 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

0.053634074 = sum of:
  0.029237112 = product of:
    0.11694845 = sum of:
      0.11694845 = weight(_text_:authors in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11694845 = score(doc=3030,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = 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)
  0.024396962 = product of:
    0.048793923 = sum of:
      0.048793923 = weight(_text_:22 in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048793923 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18016386 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = 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

0.051604256 = sum of:
  0.030692575 = product of:
    0.1227703 = sum of:
      0.1227703 = weight(_text_:authors in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1227703 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = 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)
  0.02091168 = product of:
    0.04182336 = sum of:
      0.04182336 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04182336 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18016386 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = 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

0.0502218 = sum of:
  0.025577148 = product of:
    0.10230859 = sum of:
      0.10230859 = weight(_text_:authors in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10230859 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = 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)
  0.024644654 = product of:
    0.04928931 = sum of:
      0.04928931 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04928931 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18016386 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = 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

0.0502218 = sum of:
  0.025577148 = product of:
    0.10230859 = sum of:
      0.10230859 = weight(_text_:authors in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10230859 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = 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)
  0.024644654 = product of:
    0.04928931 = sum of:
      0.04928931 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04928931 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18016386 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = 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

0.048490275 = sum of:
  0.0147669725 = product of:
    0.05906789 = sum of:
      0.05906789 = weight(_text_:authors in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05906789 = score(doc=4907,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 4907, 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=4907)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.033723302 = product of:
    0.067446604 = sum of:
      0.067446604 = weight(_text_:v in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.067446604 = score(doc=4907,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.26911086 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The author examines patterns of productivity in the Internet mailing lists, also known as discussion lists or discussion groups. Datasets have been collected from electronic archives of two Internet mailing lists, the LINGUIST and the History of the English Language. Theoretical models widely used in informetric research have been applied to fit the distribution of posted messages over the population of authors. The Generalized Inverse Poisson-Gaussian and Poisson-lognormal distributions show excellent results in both datasets, while Lotka and Yule-Simon distribution demonstrate poor-to-mediocre fits. In the mailing list where moderation and quality control are enforced to a higher degree, i.e., the LINGUIST, Lotka, and Yule-Simon distributions perform better. The findings can be plausibly explained by the lesser applicability of the success-breedssuccess model to the information production in the electronic communication media, such as Internet mailing lists, where selectivity of publications is marginal or nonexistent. The hypothesis is preliminary, and needs to be validated against the larger variety of datasets. Characteristics of the quality control, competitiveness, and the reward structure in Internet mailing lists as compared to professional scholarly journals are discussed.

0.048490275 = sum of:
  0.0147669725 = product of:
    0.05906789 = sum of:
      0.05906789 = weight(_text_:authors in 2356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05906789 = score(doc=2356,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2356, 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=2356)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.033723302 = product of:
    0.067446604 = sum of:
      0.067446604 = weight(_text_:v in 2356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.067446604 = score(doc=2356,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.26911086 = fieldWeight in 2356, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2356)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

While several authors have argued that conference proceedings are an important source of scientific knowledge, the extent of their importance has not been measured in a systematic manner. This article examines the scientific impact and aging of conference proceedings compared to those of scientific literature in general. It shows that the relative importance of proceedings is diminishing over time and currently represents only 1.7% of references made in the natural sciences and engineering, and 2.5% in the social sciences and humanities. Although the scientific impact of proceedings is losing ground to other types of scientific literature in nearly all fields, it has grown from 8% of the references in engineering papers in the early 1980s to its current 10%. Proceedings play a particularly important role in computer sciences, where they account for close to 20% of the references. This article also shows that not unexpectedly, proceedings age faster than cited scientific literature in general. The evidence thus shows that proceedings have a relatively limited scientific impact, on average representing only about 2% of total citations, that their relative importance is shrinking, and that they become obsolete faster than the scientific literature in general.

0.048490275 = sum of:
  0.0147669725 = product of:
    0.05906789 = sum of:
      0.05906789 = weight(_text_:authors in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05906789 = score(doc=284,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 284, 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=284)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.033723302 = product of:
    0.067446604 = sum of:
      0.067446604 = weight(_text_:v in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.067446604 = score(doc=284,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.26911086 = fieldWeight in 284, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=284)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article analyzes the effects of publication language on the international scientific visibility of Russia using the Web of Science (WoS). Like other developing and transition countries, it is subject to a growing pressure to "internationalize" its scientific activities, which primarily means a shift to English as a language of scientific communication. But to what extent does the transition to English improve the impact of research? The case of Russia is of interest in this respect as the existence of many combinations of national journals and languages of publications (namely, Russian and English, including translated journals) provide a kind of natural I experiment to test the effects of language and publisher's country on the international visibility of research through citations as well as on the referencing practices of authors. Our analysis points to the conclusion that the production of original English-language papers in foreign journals is a more efficient strategy of internationalization than the mere translation of domestic journals. If the objective of a country is to maximize the international visibility of its scientific work, then the efforts should go into the promotion of publication in reputed English-language journals to profit from the added effect provided by the Matthew effect of these venues.