Search (1382 results, page 1 of 70)

0.12159809 = sum of:
  0.031098805 = product of:
    0.12439522 = sum of:
      0.12439522 = weight(_text_:authors in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12439522 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
  0.09049928 = sum of:
    0.044037405 = weight(_text_:k in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044037405 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052129436 = queryNorm
        0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
    0.004084964 = weight(_text_:s in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004084964 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052129436 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
    0.042376913 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042376913 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052129436 = 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)

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

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.10, S.2086-2096

0.10837335 = sum of:
  0.04787974 = product of:
    0.19151896 = sum of:
      0.19151896 = weight(_text_:authors in 5066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19151896 = score(doc=5066,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.80589205 = fieldWeight in 5066, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5066)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.06049361 = product of:
    0.09074041 = sum of:
      0.08303773 = weight(_text_:k in 5066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08303773 = score(doc=5066,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.44622225 = fieldWeight in 5066, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5066)
      0.007702682 = weight(_text_:s in 5066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007702682 = score(doc=5066,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.1359047 = fieldWeight in 5066, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5066)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Bradford's law of scatter was applied to the analysis of the authors of source documents on the subject of classification schemes, published in core periodicals over the period 1981-1990. Results indicated that: core authors of the international classification system literature are Library of Congress, M. Dewey, S. Ranganathan, J. Comaroni, A. Neelameghan, L. Chan and K. Markey; the highly cited authors are linked either to the developers of the classification schemes or to a research centre, or else they authored the most frequently cited books; and the data conforms to Bradford's Law of Scatter

Source

Scientometrics. 29(1994) no.2, S.253-269

0.09037849 = sum of:
  0.01496242 = product of:
    0.05984968 = sum of:
      0.05984968 = weight(_text_:authors in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05984968 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.07541607 = sum of:
    0.03669784 = weight(_text_:k in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03669784 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052129436 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.0034041367 = weight(_text_:s in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0034041367 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052129436 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.035314094 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035314094 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052129436 = 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

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.791-810

0.09037849 = sum of:
  0.01496242 = product of:
    0.05984968 = sum of:
      0.05984968 = weight(_text_:authors in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05984968 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.07541607 = sum of:
    0.03669784 = weight(_text_:k in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03669784 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052129436 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.0034041367 = weight(_text_:s in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0034041367 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052129436 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.035314094 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035314094 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052129436 = 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

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.811-827

0.074954934 = sum of:
  0.04398035 = product of:
    0.1759214 = sum of:
      0.1759214 = weight(_text_:authors in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1759214 = score(doc=853,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
  0.030974586 = product of:
    0.046461876 = sum of:
      0.004084964 = weight(_text_:s in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.004084964 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 853, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=853)
      0.042376913 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042376913 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.07162784 = sum of:
  0.025392069 = product of:
    0.101568274 = sum of:
      0.101568274 = weight(_text_:authors in 5140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101568274 = score(doc=5140,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 5140, 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=5140)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.04623577 = product of:
    0.069353655 = sum of:
      0.062278293 = weight(_text_:k in 5140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.062278293 = score(doc=5140,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.33466667 = fieldWeight in 5140, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5140)
      0.0070753656 = weight(_text_:s in 5140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0070753656 = score(doc=5140,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.124836445 = fieldWeight in 5140, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5140)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Newby, Greenberg, and Jones analyze programming productivity of open source software by counting registered developers contributions found in the Linux Software Map and in Scourceforge. Using seven years of data from a subset of the Linux directory tree LSM data provided 4503 files with 3341 unique author names. The distribution follows Lotka's Law with an exponent of 2.82 as verified by the Kolmolgorov-Smirnov one sample goodness of fit test. Scourceforge data is broken into developers and administrators, but when both were used as authors the Lotka distribution exponent of 2.55 produces the lowest error. This would not be significant by the K-S test but the 3.54% maximum error would indicate a fit and calls into question the appropriateness of K-S for large populations of authors.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.2, S.169-178

0.068132274 = sum of:
  0.042320117 = product of:
    0.16928047 = sum of:
      0.16928047 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16928047 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
  0.025812155 = product of:
    0.03871823 = sum of:
      0.0034041367 = weight(_text_:s in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0034041367 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
      0.035314094 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035314094 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.068048686 = sum of:
  0.06691398 = product of:
    0.2676559 = sum of:
      0.2676559 = weight(_text_:authors in 3129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2676559 = score(doc=3129,freq=40.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          1.1262684 = fieldWeight in 3129, product of:
            6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
              40.0 = termFreq=40.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3129)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0011347122 = product of:
    0.0034041367 = sum of:
      0.0034041367 = weight(_text_:s in 3129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0034041367 = score(doc=3129,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3129, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3129)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study explores the extent to which authors with different impact and productivity levels cite journals, institutions, and other authors through an analysis of the scientific papers of 37,717 authors during 1990-2013. The results demonstrate that the core-scatter distribution of cited authors, institutions, and journals varies for authors in each impact and productivity class. All authors in the science network receive the majority of their credit from high-impact authors; however, this effect decreases as authors' impact levels decrease. Similarly, the proportion of citations that lower-impact authors make to each other increases as authors' impact levels decrease. High-impact authors, who have the highest degree of membership in the science network, publish fewer papers in comparison to highly productive authors. However, authors with the highest impact make both more references per paper and also more citations to papers in the science network. This suggests that high-impact authors produce the most relevant work in the science network. Comparing practices by productivity level, authors receive the majority of their credit from highly productive authors and authors cite highly productive authors more frequently than less productive authors.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.10, S.2536-2549

0.06707713 = sum of:
  0.029624078 = product of:
    0.11849631 = sum of:
      0.11849631 = weight(_text_:authors in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11849631 = score(doc=3030,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
  0.037453055 = product of:
    0.05617958 = sum of:
      0.006739847 = weight(_text_:s in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006739847 = score(doc=3030,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.118916616 = fieldWeight in 3030, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3030)
      0.049439732 = weight(_text_:22 in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049439732 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

Content

Contribution to the 30th anniversary issue of 'Probleme de Informare si Documentare' - Reprint of an article which originally appeared in 'Probleme de Informare si Documentare 13(1978) no.2, S.43-64'

Date

22. 2.1999 16:16:11

Source

Probleme de Informare si Documentare. 31(1997) nos.3/4, S.207-220

0.06241957 = sum of:
  0.025915675 = product of:
    0.1036627 = sum of:
      0.1036627 = weight(_text_:authors in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1036627 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
  0.036503896 = product of:
    0.054755844 = sum of:
      0.004814176 = weight(_text_:s in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.004814176 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
      0.04994167 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04994167 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.1, S.27-54

0.061479546 = sum of:
  0.025915675 = product of:
    0.1036627 = sum of:
      0.1036627 = weight(_text_:authors in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1036627 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
  0.03556387 = product of:
    0.053345807 = sum of:
      0.0034041367 = weight(_text_:s in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0034041367 = score(doc=2808,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
      0.04994167 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04994167 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

Source

Journal of information science. 24(1998) no.4, S.241-254

0.060456008 = sum of:
  0.05864047 = product of:
    0.23456188 = sum of:
      0.23456188 = weight(_text_:authors in 3159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.23456188 = score(doc=3159,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.98701215 = fieldWeight in 3159, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3159)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0018155396 = product of:
    0.0054466184 = sum of:
      0.0054466184 = weight(_text_:s in 3159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0054466184 = score(doc=3159,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 3159, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3159)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We show that between 1999 and 2008 the percentage of articles with more than one corresponding author or with several authors that contributed equally, leading to so-called equal first authors, has steadily been on the rise. Increasing numbers of corresponding authors and equally contributing authors may lead to increased stress on teamwork if not properly acknowledged in research evaluation exercises.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.11, S.2378-2381

0.06019164 = sum of:
  0.03345699 = product of:
    0.13382795 = sum of:
      0.13382795 = weight(_text_:authors in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13382795 = score(doc=453,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.5631342 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02673465 = product of:
    0.040101975 = sum of:
      0.03669784 = weight(_text_:k in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03669784 = score(doc=453,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
      0.0034041367 = weight(_text_:s in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0034041367 = score(doc=453,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Relationships between authors based on characteristics of published literature have been studied for decades. Author cocitation analysis using mapping techniques has been most frequently used to study how closely two authors are thought to be in intellectual space based on how members of the research community co-cite their works. Other approaches exist to study author relatedness based more directly on the text of their published works. In this study we present static and dynamic word-based approaches using vector space modeling, as well as a topic-based approach based on latent Dirichlet allocation for mapping author research relatedness. Vector space modeling is used to define an author space consisting of works by a given author. Outcomes for the two word-based approaches and a topic-based approach for 50 prolific authors in library and information science are compared with more traditional author cocitation analysis using multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis. The two word-based approaches produced similar outcomes except where two authors were frequent co-authors for the majority of their articles. The topic-based approach produced the most distinctive map.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.10, S.1973-1986

0.058601685 = sum of:
  0.025392069 = product of:
    0.101568274 = sum of:
      0.101568274 = weight(_text_:authors in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101568274 = score(doc=261,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 261, 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=261)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.033209614 = product of:
    0.049814418 = sum of:
      0.044037405 = weight(_text_:k in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044037405 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
      0.0057770116 = weight(_text_:s in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0057770116 = score(doc=261,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The controversial use of bibliometrics in scientific decision making has necessitated the need for researchers to remain informed and engaged about bibliometrics. Glänzel and Schoepflin () first raised the issue of bibliometric standards in bibliometric research and this concern has been echoed by several additional bibliometric researchers over time (Braun, ; Glänzel, ; Abbott, Cyranoski, Jones, Maher, Schiermeier, & Van Noorden, ; Lane, ; Nature, ; van Noorden, ; Wallin, ). We compare the characteristics of articles published within and outside the Library and Information Science (LIS) field, including the relative impact and the affiliation of the contributing authors. We find that although the visibility of bibliometric articles within LIS is higher, it is not significant. However, a statistically significant growth in the number of articles written by authors without a bibliometric affiliation was found. This article provides an independent empirical investigation of publication trends potentially underlying Glänzel and Schoepflin's () concerns regarding the misuse of bibliometric results, and the inaccurate dissemination of concepts, results, and methods outside of the bibliometric field.

Content

Erratum dazu in: JASIST 63(2012) no.6, S.1280.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.829-836

0.058400445 = sum of:
  0.020947387 = product of:
    0.08378955 = sum of:
      0.08378955 = weight(_text_:authors in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08378955 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.037453055 = product of:
    0.05617958 = sum of:
      0.006739847 = weight(_text_:s in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006739847 = score(doc=547,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.118916616 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
      0.049439732 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049439732 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article discusses how letters to the editor boost publishing metrics for journals and authors, and then examines letters published since 2015 in six elite journals, including the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. The initial findings identify some potentially anomalous use of letters and unusual self-citation patterns. The article proposes that Clarivate Analytics consider slightly reconfiguring the Journal Impact Factor to more fairly account for letters and that journals transparently explain their letter submission policies.

Date

6. 4.2022 19:22:26

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.5, S.702-707

0.058320828 = sum of:
  0.02992484 = product of:
    0.11969936 = sum of:
      0.11969936 = weight(_text_:authors in 4370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11969936 = score(doc=4370,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 4370, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4370)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.028395986 = product of:
    0.04259398 = sum of:
      0.03669784 = weight(_text_:k in 4370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03669784 = score(doc=4370,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 4370, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4370)
      0.005896138 = weight(_text_:s in 4370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005896138 = score(doc=4370,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.10403037 = fieldWeight in 4370, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4370)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper proposes a methodology which discriminates the articles by the target authors ("true" articles) from those by other homonymous authors ("false" articles). Author name searches for 2,595 "source" authors in six subject fields retrieved about 629,000 articles. In order to extract true articles from the large amount of the retrieved articles, including many false ones, two filtering stages were applied. At the first stage any retrieved article was eliminated as false if either its affiliation addresses had little similarity to those of its source article or there was no citation relationship between the journal of the retrieved article and that of its source article. At the second stage, a sample of retrieved articles was subjected to manual judgment, and utilizing the judgment results, discrimination functions based on logistic regression were defined. These discrimination functions demonstrated both the recall ratio and the precision of about 95% and the accuracy (correct answer ratio) of 90-95%. Existence of common coauthor(s), address similarity, title words similarity, and interjournal citation relationships between the retrieved and source articles were found to be the effective discrimination predictors. Whether or not the source author was from a specific country was also one of the important predictors. Furthermore, it was shown that a retrieved article is almost certainly true if it was cited by, or cocited with, its source article. The method proposed in this study would be effective when dealing with a large number of articles whose subject fields and affiliation addresses vary widely.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.4, S.677-690

0.058028538 = sum of:
  0.021160059 = product of:
    0.084640235 = sum of:
      0.084640235 = weight(_text_:authors in 5123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.084640235 = score(doc=5123,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 5123, 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=5123)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.03686848 = product of:
    0.055302717 = sum of:
      0.05189858 = weight(_text_:k in 5123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05189858 = score(doc=5123,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.2788889 = fieldWeight in 5123, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5123)
      0.0034041367 = weight(_text_:s in 5123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0034041367 = score(doc=5123,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 5123, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5123)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Studies of the concentration of author productivity based upon counts of papers by individual authors will produce measures that change systematically with sample size. Yoshikane, Kageura, and Tsuji seek a statistical framework which will avoid this scale effect problem. Using the number of authors in a field as an absolute concentration measure, and Gini's index as a relative concentration measure, they describe four literatures form both viewpoints with measures insensitive to one another. Both measures will increase with sample size. They then plot profiles of the two measures on the basis of a Monte-Carlo simulation of 1000 trials for 20 equally spaced intervals and compare the characteristics of the literatures. Using data from conferences hosted by four academic societies between 1992 and 1997, they find a coefficient of loss exceeding 0.15 indicating measures will depend highly on sample size. The simulation shows that a larger sample size leads to lower absolute concentration and higher relative concentration. Comparisons made at the same sample size present quite different results than the original data and allow direct comparison of population characteristics.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.6, S.519-527

0.057473652 = sum of:
  0.025392069 = product of:
    0.101568274 = sum of:
      0.101568274 = weight(_text_:authors in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101568274 = score(doc=3593,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 3593, 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=3593)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.03208158 = product of:
    0.04812237 = sum of:
      0.044037405 = weight(_text_:k in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044037405 = score(doc=3593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
      0.004084964 = weight(_text_:s in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.004084964 = score(doc=3593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The Discounted Cumulated Impact (DCI) index has recently been proposed for research evaluation. In the present work an earlier dataset by Cronin and Meho (2007) is reanalyzed, with the aim of exemplifying the salient features of the DCI index. We apply the index on, and compare our results to, the outcomes of the Cronin-Meho (2007) study. Both authors and their top publications are used as units of analysis, which suggests that, by adjusting the parameters of evaluation according to the needs of research evaluation, the DCI index delivers data on an author's (or publication's) lifetime impact or current impact at the time of evaluation on an author's (or publication's) capability of inviting citations from highly cited later publications as an indication of impact, and on the relative impact across a set of authors (or publications) over their lifetime or currently.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1424-1439

0.056366652 = sum of:
  0.025392069 = product of:
    0.101568274 = sum of:
      0.101568274 = weight(_text_:authors in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101568274 = score(doc=2751,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.030974586 = product of:
    0.046461876 = sum of:
      0.004084964 = weight(_text_:s in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.004084964 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
      0.042376913 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042376913 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Why authors choose some references in preference to others is a question that is still not wholly answered despite its being of interest to scientists. The relevance of references is twofold: They are a mechanism for tracing the evolution of science, and because they enhance the image of the cited authors, citations are a widely known and used indicator of scientific endeavor. Following an extensive review of the literature, we selected all papers that seek to answer the central question and demonstrate that the existing theories are not sufficient: Neither citation nor indicator theory provides a complete and convincing answer. Some perspectives in this arena remain, which are isolated from the core literature. The purpose of this article is to offer a fresh perspective on a 30-year-old problem by extending the context of the discussion. We suggest reviving the discussion about citation theories with a new perspective, that of the readers, by layers or phases, in the final choice of references, allowing for a new classification in which any paper, to date, could be included.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:05:07

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.754-777

0.056366652 = sum of:
  0.025392069 = product of:
    0.101568274 = sum of:
      0.101568274 = weight(_text_:authors in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101568274 = score(doc=918,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.030974586 = product of:
    0.046461876 = sum of:
      0.004084964 = weight(_text_:s in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.004084964 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
      0.042376913 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042376913 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics.

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:14

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.4, S.415-433