-
Heneberg, P.: Supposedly uncited articles of Nobel laureates and Fields medalists can be prevalently attributed to the errors of omission and commission (2013)
0.07
0.065550104 = sum of:
0.0079238415 = product of:
0.04754305 = sum of:
0.04754305 = weight(_text_:authors in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04754305 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1887818 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 660, 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=660)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
0.057626262 = sum of:
0.02957365 = weight(_text_:p in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02957365 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14889121 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
0.028052611 = weight(_text_:22 in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028052611 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14501177 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 660, 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=660)
- Abstract
- Several independent authors reported a high share of uncited publications, which include those produced by top scientists. This share was repeatedly reported to exceed 10% of the total papers produced, without any explanation of this phenomenon and the lack of difference in uncitedness between average and successful researchers. In this report, we analyze the uncitedness among two independent groups of highly visible scientists (mathematicians represented by Fields medalists, and researchers in physiology or medicine represented by Nobel Prize laureates in the respective field). Analysis of both groups led to the identical conclusion: over 90% of the uncited database records of highly visible scientists can be explained by the inclusion of editorial materials progress reports presented at international meetings (meeting abstracts), discussion items (letters to the editor, discussion), personalia (biographic items), and by errors of omission and commission of the Web of Science (WoS) database and of the citing documents. Only a marginal amount of original articles and reviews were found to be uncited (0.9 and 0.3%, respectively), which is in strong contrast with the previously reported data, which never addressed the document types among the uncited records.
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:21:46
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Why are coauthored academic articles more cited : higher quality or larger audience? (2023)
0.07
0.065550104 = sum of:
0.0079238415 = product of:
0.04754305 = sum of:
0.04754305 = weight(_text_:authors in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04754305 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1887818 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
0.057626262 = sum of:
0.02957365 = weight(_text_:p in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02957365 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14889121 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
0.028052611 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028052611 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14501177 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
- Abstract
- Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
-
Vakkari, P.; Järvelin, K.; Chang, Y.-W.: ¬The association of disciplinary background with the evolution of topics and methods in Library and Information Science research 1995-2015 (2023)
0.07
0.065550104 = sum of:
0.0079238415 = product of:
0.04754305 = sum of:
0.04754305 = weight(_text_:authors in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04754305 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1887818 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
0.057626262 = sum of:
0.02957365 = weight(_text_:p in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02957365 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14889121 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
0.028052611 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028052611 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14501177 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
- Abstract
- The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production.
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:15:06
-
Haustein, S.; Sugimoto, C.; Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication : Guest editorial (2015)
0.07
0.06505008 = sum of:
0.004754305 = product of:
0.02852583 = sum of:
0.02852583 = weight(_text_:authors in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02852583 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1887818 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
0.06029577 = sum of:
0.043464206 = weight(_text_:p in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043464206 = score(doc=3809,freq=12.0), product of:
0.14889121 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.29191923 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.016831566 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016831566 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14501177 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = 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
- This year marks 350 years since the inaugural publications of both the Journal des Sçavans and the Philosophical Transactions, first published in 1665 and considered the birth of the peer-reviewed journal article. This form of scholarly communication has not only remained the dominant model for disseminating new knowledge (particularly for science and medicine), but has also increased substantially in volume. Derek de Solla Price - the "father of scientometrics" (Merton and Garfield, 1986, p. vii) - was the first to document the exponential increase in scientific journals and showed that "scientists have always felt themselves to be awash in a sea of the scientific literature" (Price, 1963, p. 15), as, for example, expressed at the 1948 Royal Society's Scientific Information Conference: Not for the first time in history, but more acutely than ever before, there was a fear that scientists would be overwhelmed, that they would be no longer able to control the vast amounts of potentially relevant material that were pouring forth from the world's presses, that science itself was under threat (Bawden and Robinson, 2008, p. 183).
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).
Furthermore, the rise of the web, and subsequently, the social web, has challenged the quasi-monopolistic status of the journal as the main form of scholarly communication and citation indices as the primary assessment mechanisms. Scientific communication is becoming more open, transparent, and diverse: publications are increasingly open access; manuscripts, presentations, code, and data are shared online; research ideas and results are discussed and criticized openly on blogs; and new peer review experiments, with open post publication assessment by anonymous or non-anonymous referees, are underway. The diversification of scholarly production and assessment, paired with the increasing speed of the communication process, leads to an increased information overload (Bawden and Robinson, 2008), demanding new filters. The concept of altmetrics, short for alternative (to citation) metrics, was created out of an attempt to provide a filter (Priem et al., 2010) and to steer against the oversimplification of the measurement of scientific success solely on the basis of number of journal articles published and citations received, by considering a wider range of research outputs and metrics (Piwowar, 2013). Although the term altmetrics was introduced in a tweet in 2010 (Priem, 2010), the idea of capturing traces - "polymorphous mentioning" (Cronin et al., 1998, p. 1320) - of scholars and their documents on the web to measure "impact" of science in a broader manner than citations was introduced years before, largely in the context of webometrics (Almind and Ingwersen, 1997; Thelwall et al., 2005):
There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.06
0.060275607 = sum of:
0.014174599 = product of:
0.085047595 = sum of:
0.085047595 = weight(_text_:authors in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.085047595 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
0.1887818 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
0.046101008 = sum of:
0.023658918 = weight(_text_:p in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023658918 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14889121 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.15890071 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.02244209 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02244209 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14501177 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = 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
-
Levin, M.; Krawczyk, S.; Bethard, S.; Jurafsky, D.: Citation-based bootstrapping for large-scale author disambiguation (2012)
0.06
0.05737099 = product of:
0.11474198 = sum of:
0.11474198 = product of:
0.34422594 = sum of:
0.06723603 = weight(_text_:authors in 246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06723603 = score(doc=246,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1887818 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 246, 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=246)
0.2769899 = weight(_text_:b3 in 246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.2769899 = score(doc=246,freq=2.0), product of:
0.45566803 = queryWeight, product of:
11.00374 = idf(docFreq=1, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.60787654 = fieldWeight in 246, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
11.00374 = idf(docFreq=1, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=246)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We present a new, two-stage, self-supervised algorithm for author disambiguation in large bibliographic databases. In the first "bootstrap" stage, a collection of high-precision features is used to bootstrap a training set with positive and negative examples of coreferring authors. A supervised feature-based classifier is then trained on the bootstrap clusters and used to cluster the authors in a larger unlabeled dataset. Our self-supervised approach shares the advantages of unsupervised approaches (no need for expensive hand labels) as well as supervised approaches (a rich set of features that can be discriminatively trained). The algorithm disambiguates 54,000,000 author instances in Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge with B3 F1 of.807. We analyze parameters and features, particularly those from citation networks, which have not been deeply investigated in author disambiguation. The most important citation feature is self-citation, which can be approximated without expensive extraction of the full network. For the supervised stage, the minor improvement due to other citation features (increasing F1 from.748 to.767) suggests they may not be worth the trouble of extracting from databases that don't already have them. A lean feature set without expensive abstract and title features performs 130 times faster with about equal F1.
-
Pichappan, P.; Sangaranachiyar, S.: Ageing approach to scientific eponyms (1996)
0.05
0.046101008 = product of:
0.092202015 = sum of:
0.092202015 = sum of:
0.047317836 = weight(_text_:p in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047317836 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14889121 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.31780142 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
0.04488418 = weight(_text_:22 in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04488418 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14501177 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 80, 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=80)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Report presented at the 16th National Indian Association of Special Libraries and Information Centres Seminar Special Interest Group Meeting on Informatrics in Bombay, 19-22 Dec 94
-
Ohly, P.: Dimensions of globality : a bibliometric analysis (2016)
0.05
0.046101008 = product of:
0.092202015 = sum of:
0.092202015 = sum of:
0.047317836 = weight(_text_:p in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047317836 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14889121 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.31780142 = fieldWeight in 4942, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4942)
0.04488418 = weight(_text_:22 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04488418 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14501177 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4942, 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=4942)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2019 11:22:31
-
¬Die deutsche Zeitschrift für Dokumentation, Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis von 1950 bis 2011 : eine vorläufige Bilanz in vier Abschnitten (2012)
0.04
0.04192564 = product of:
0.08385128 = sum of:
0.08385128 = sum of:
0.050188147 = weight(_text_:p in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050188147 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14889121 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.33707932 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
0.03366313 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03366313 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14501177 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = 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).
-
Siddiqui, M.A.: ¬A bibliometric study of authorship characteristics in four international information science journals (1997)
0.04
0.040122807 = sum of:
0.023291241 = product of:
0.13974744 = sum of:
0.13974744 = weight(_text_:authors in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13974744 = score(doc=853,freq=12.0), product of:
0.1887818 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
0.016831566 = product of:
0.03366313 = sum of:
0.03366313 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03366313 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14501177 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = 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
-
Kretschmer, H.; Kretschmer, T.: Well-ordered collaboration structures of co-author pairs in journals (2006)
0.04
0.03749749 = sum of:
0.0079238415 = product of:
0.04754305 = sum of:
0.04754305 = weight(_text_:authors in 25) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04754305 = score(doc=25,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1887818 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 25, 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=25)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
0.02957365 = product of:
0.0591473 = sum of:
0.0591473 = weight(_text_:p in 25) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0591473 = score(doc=25,freq=8.0), product of:
0.14889121 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.39725178 = fieldWeight in 25, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=25)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In single-authored bibliographies only single scientist distribution can be found. But in multi-authored bibliographies single scientists distribution, pairs distribution, triples distribution, etc., can be presented. Whereas regarding Lotka's law single scientists P distribution (both in single-authored and in multi-authored bibliographies) is of interest, in the future pairs P, Q distribution, triples P, Q, R distribution, etc. should be considered Starting with pair distribution, the following question arises in the present paper: Is there also any regularity or well-ordered structure for the distribution of coauthor pairs in journals in analogy to Lotka's law for the distribution of single authors? Usually, in information science "laws " or "regularities " (for example Lotka's law) are mathematical descriptions of observed data inform of functions; however explanations of these phenomena are mostly missing. By contrast, in this paper the derivation of a formula for describing the distribution of the number of co-author pairs will be presented based on wellknown regularities in socio psychology or sociology in conjunction with the Gestalt theory as explanation for well-ordered collaboration structures and production of scientific literature, as well as derivations from Lotka's law. The assumed regularities for the distribution of co-author pairs in journals could be shown in the co-authorship data (1980-1998) of the journals Science, Nature, Proc Nat Acad Sci USA and Phys Rev B Condensed Matter.
- Source
- Vom Wandel der Wissensorganisation im Informationszeitalter: Festschrift für Walther Umstätter zum 65. Geburtstag, hrsg. von P. Hauke u. K. Umlauf
-
Mongeon, P.; Larivière, V.: Costly collaborations : the impact of scientific fraud on co-authors' careers (2016)
0.04
0.037198834 = sum of:
0.02241201 = product of:
0.13447206 = sum of:
0.13447206 = weight(_text_:authors in 2769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13447206 = score(doc=2769,freq=16.0), product of:
0.1887818 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
0.014786825 = product of:
0.02957365 = sum of:
0.02957365 = weight(_text_:p in 2769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02957365 = score(doc=2769,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14889121 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 2769, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, 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.
-
Castanha, R.C.G.; Wolfram, D.: ¬The domain of knowledge organization : a bibliometric analysis of prolific authors and their intellectual space (2018)
0.04
0.036438316 = sum of:
0.02241201 = product of:
0.13447206 = sum of:
0.13447206 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13447206 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
0.1887818 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
0.014026306 = product of:
0.028052611 = sum of:
0.028052611 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028052611 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14501177 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = 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
-
Avramescu, A.: Teoria difuziei informatiei stiintifice (1997)
0.04
0.035325233 = sum of:
0.015688406 = product of:
0.094130434 = sum of:
0.094130434 = weight(_text_:authors in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.094130434 = score(doc=3030,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1887818 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
0.019636827 = product of:
0.039273653 = sum of:
0.039273653 = weight(_text_:22 in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039273653 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14501177 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = 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
-
Albarrán, P.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: References made and citations received by scientific articles (2011)
0.03
0.034575753 = product of:
0.069151506 = sum of:
0.069151506 = sum of:
0.03548838 = weight(_text_:p in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03548838 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14889121 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 4185, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4185)
0.03366313 = weight(_text_:22 in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03366313 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14501177 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4185, 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=4185)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article studies massive evidence about references made and citations received after a 5-year citation window by 3.7 million articles published in 1998 to 2002 in 22 scientific fields. We find that the distributions of references made and citations received share a number of basic features across sciences. Reference distributions are rather skewed to the right while citation distributions are even more highly skewed: The mean is about 20 percentage points to the right of the median, and articles with a remarkable or an outstanding number of citations represent about 9% of the total. Moreover, the existence of a power law representing the upper tail of citation distributions cannot be rejected in 17 fields whose articles represent 74.7% of the total. Contrary to the evidence in other contexts, the value of the scale parameter is above 3.5 in 13 of the 17 cases. Finally, power laws are typically small, but capture a considerable proportion of the total citations received.
-
Huang, M.-H.; Huang, W.-T.; Chang, C.-C.; Chen, D. Z.; Lin, C.-P.: The greater scattering phenomenon beyond Bradford's law in patent citation (2014)
0.03
0.034575753 = product of:
0.069151506 = sum of:
0.069151506 = sum of:
0.03548838 = weight(_text_:p in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03548838 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14889121 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
0.03366313 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03366313 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14501177 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:11:29
-
Kronegger, L.; Mali, F.; Ferligoj, A.; Doreian, P.: Classifying scientific disciplines in Slovenia : a study of the evolution of collaboration structures (2015)
0.03
0.034575753 = product of:
0.069151506 = sum of:
0.069151506 = sum of:
0.03548838 = weight(_text_:p in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03548838 = score(doc=1639,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14889121 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 1639, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1639)
0.03366313 = weight(_text_:22 in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03366313 = score(doc=1639,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14501177 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1639, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1639)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 21. 1.2015 14:55:22
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.03
0.034575753 = product of:
0.069151506 = sum of:
0.069151506 = sum of:
0.03548838 = weight(_text_:p in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03548838 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14889121 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
0.03366313 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03366313 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14501177 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
-
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)
0.03
0.03356069 = sum of:
0.0137244975 = product of:
0.08234698 = sum of:
0.08234698 = weight(_text_:authors in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08234698 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1887818 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
0.019836191 = product of:
0.039672382 = sum of:
0.039672382 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039672382 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14501177 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = 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
-
Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015)
0.03
0.03356069 = sum of:
0.0137244975 = product of:
0.08234698 = sum of:
0.08234698 = weight(_text_:authors in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08234698 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1887818 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
0.019836191 = product of:
0.039672382 = sum of:
0.039672382 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039672382 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14501177 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041410286 = 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
