Search (460 results, page 1 of 23)

0.08762424 = sum of:
  0.014982744 = product of:
    0.059930976 = sum of:
      0.059930976 = weight(_text_:authors in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059930976 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.07264149 = sum of:
    0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037279427 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052200247 = 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)
    0.035362065 = weight(_text_:22 in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035362065 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052200247 = 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

0.08762424 = sum of:
  0.014982744 = product of:
    0.059930976 = sum of:
      0.059930976 = weight(_text_:authors in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059930976 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
  0.07264149 = sum of:
    0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037279427 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052200247 = 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)
    0.035362065 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035362065 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052200247 = 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

0.08762424 = sum of:
  0.014982744 = product of:
    0.059930976 = sum of:
      0.059930976 = weight(_text_:authors in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059930976 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
  0.07264149 = sum of:
    0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037279427 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052200247 = 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)
    0.035362065 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035362065 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052200247 = 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

0.08499622 = sum of:
  0.008989646 = product of:
    0.035958584 = sum of:
      0.035958584 = weight(_text_:authors in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035958584 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.15110476 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.07600658 = sum of:
    0.054789342 = weight(_text_:p in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054789342 = score(doc=3809,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052200247 = 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)
    0.021217238 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217238 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052200247 = 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

0.084915146 = sum of:
  0.026801948 = product of:
    0.10720779 = sum of:
      0.10720779 = weight(_text_:authors in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10720779 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.45050737 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.058113195 = sum of:
    0.029823542 = weight(_text_:p in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029823542 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052200247 = 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)
    0.028289651 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028289651 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052200247 = 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

0.065257326 = sum of:
  0.04404009 = product of:
    0.17616037 = sum of:
      0.17616037 = weight(_text_:authors in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17616037 = score(doc=853,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
  0.021217238 = product of:
    0.042434476 = sum of:
      0.042434476 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042434476 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 853, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=853)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of a bibliometric study of the authorship characteristics of articles published in 4 major information science periodicals: JASIS, Information technology and libraries, Journal of information science, and Program. The aim was to determine the details of their authors, such as: sex, occupation, affiliation, geographic distribution, and institutional affiliation. A total of 163 articles published in 1993 and written by 294 authors were analyzed. Results indicate that: men (206 or 70%) publish 3.0 times more articles than women (69 or 23,5%). Schools of library and information science contributed the most authors. The majority of authors came from the USA (148 or 50,3%), with the Midwest region claiming the largest share (110 or 25,0%). Academic libraries (110 or 37,4%) account for the major share of library publication. 12 schools of library and information science, in the USA, contributed 32 authors (50,0%) and assistant professors (25 or 39,1%) publish the most in these library schools. Male school of library and information science authors publish 1,6 times more than their female counterparts

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.3, S.3-23

0.061017312 = sum of:
  0.0423776 = product of:
    0.1695104 = sum of:
      0.1695104 = weight(_text_:authors in 2769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1695104 = score(doc=2769,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 2769, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2769)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.018639714 = product of:
    0.037279427 = sum of:
      0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 2769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037279427 = score(doc=2769,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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.

0.06005863 = sum of:
  0.0423776 = product of:
    0.1695104 = sum of:
      0.1695104 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1695104 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
  0.017681032 = product of:
    0.035362065 = sum of:
      0.035362065 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035362065 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The domain of knowledge organization (KO) represents a foundational area of information science. One way to better understand the intellectual structure of the KO domain is to apply bibliometric methods to key contributors to the literature. This study analyzes the most prolific contributing authors to the journal Knowledge Organization, the sources they cite and the citations they receive for the period 1993 to 2016. The analyses were conducted using visualization outcomes of citation, co-citation and author bibliographic coupling analysis to reveal theoretical points of reference among authors and the most prominent research themes that constitute this scientific community. Birger Hjørland was the most cited author, and was situated at or near the middle of each of the maps based on different citation relationships. The proximities between authors resulting from the different citation relationships demonstrate how authors situate themselves intellectually through the citations they give and how other authors situate them through the citations received. There is a consistent core of theoretical references as well among the most productive authors. We observed a close network of scholarly communication between the authors cited in this core, which indicates the actual role of the journal Knowledge Organization as a space for knowledge construction in the area of knowledge organization.

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.13-22

0.058113195 = product of:
  0.11622639 = sum of:
    0.11622639 = sum of:
      0.059647083 = weight(_text_:p in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059647083 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
      0.056579303 = weight(_text_:22 in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056579303 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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

0.058113195 = product of:
  0.11622639 = sum of:
    0.11622639 = sum of:
      0.059647083 = weight(_text_:p in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059647083 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
      0.056579303 = weight(_text_:22 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056579303 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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

0.054417767 = sum of:
  0.029664319 = product of:
    0.118657276 = sum of:
      0.118657276 = weight(_text_:authors in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.118657276 = score(doc=3030,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
  0.024753446 = product of:
    0.04950689 = sum of:
      0.04950689 = weight(_text_:22 in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04950689 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3030, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3030)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The theory of diffusion can be successfully applied to scientific information dissemination by identifying space with a series of successive authors, and potential (temperature) with the interest of new authors towards earlier published papers, measured by the number of citations. As the total number of citation equals the number of references, the conservation law is fulfilled and Fourier's parabolic differential equation can be applied

Date

22. 2.1999 16:16:11

0.05284988 = product of:
  0.10569976 = sum of:
    0.10569976 = sum of:
      0.06326529 = weight(_text_:p in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06326529 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
      0.042434476 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042434476 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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).

0.052358285 = sum of:
  0.031141048 = product of:
    0.12456419 = sum of:
      0.12456419 = weight(_text_:authors in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12456419 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
  0.021217238 = product of:
    0.042434476 = sum of:
      0.042434476 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042434476 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Author research impact was examined based on citer analysis (the number of citers as opposed to the number of citations) for 90 highly cited authors grouped into three broad subject areas. Citer-based outcome measures were also compared with more traditional citation-based measures for levels of association. The authors found that there are significant differences in citer-based outcomes among the three broad subject areas examined and that there is a high degree of correlation between citer and citation-based measures for all measures compared, except for two outcomes calculated for the social sciences. Citer-based measures do produce slightly different rankings of authors based on citer counts when compared to more traditional citation counts. Examples are provided. Citation measures may not adequately address the influence, or reach, of an author because citations usually do not address the origin of the citation beyond self-citations.

Date

28. 9.2010 12:54:22

0.052262172 = sum of:
  0.014982744 = product of:
    0.059930976 = sum of:
      0.059930976 = weight(_text_:authors in 25) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059930976 = score(doc=25,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.037279427 = product of:
    0.074558854 = sum of:
      0.074558854 = weight(_text_:p in 25) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.074558854 = score(doc=25,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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

0.05095563 = sum of:
  0.025950875 = product of:
    0.1038035 = sum of:
      0.1038035 = weight(_text_:authors in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1038035 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
  0.025004756 = product of:
    0.05000951 = sum of:
      0.05000951 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05000951 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Internet based electronic resources are growing dramatically but there have been no empirical studies evaluating the impact of e-sources, as a whole, on formal scholarly communication. reports results of an investigation into how much e-sources have been used in formal scholarly communication, using a case study in the area of Library and Information Science (LIS) during the period 1994 to 1996. 4 citation based indicators were used in the study of the impact measurement. Concludes that, compared with the impact of print sources, the impact of e-sources on formal scholarly communication in LIS is small, as measured by e-sources cited, and does not increase significantly by year even though there is observable growth of these impact across the years. It is found that periodical format is related to the rate of citing e-sources, articles are more likely to cite e-sources than are print priodical articles. However, once authors cite electronic resource, there is no significant difference in the number of references per article by periodical format or by year. Suggests that, at this stage, citing e-sources may depend on authors rather than the periodical format in which authors choose to publish

Date

30. 1.1999 17:22:22

0.05095563 = sum of:
  0.025950875 = product of:
    0.1038035 = sum of:
      0.1038035 = weight(_text_:authors in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1038035 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
  0.025004756 = product of:
    0.05000951 = sum of:
      0.05000951 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05000951 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23

0.048605204 = sum of:
  0.029965488 = product of:
    0.11986195 = sum of:
      0.11986195 = weight(_text_:authors in 3106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11986195 = score(doc=3106,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 3106, 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=3106)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.018639714 = product of:
    0.037279427 = sum of:
      0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 3106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037279427 = score(doc=3106,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 3106, 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=3106)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper we analyze a major part of the research output of the Networked Knowledge Organization Systems (NKOS) community in the period 2000 to 2015 from a network analytical perspective. We fo- cus on the paper output presented at the European NKOS workshops in the last 15 years. Our open dataset, the "NKOS bibliography", includes 14 workshop agendas (ECDL 2000-2010, TPDL 2011-2015) and 4 special issues on NKOS (2001, 2004, 2006 and 2015) which cover 171 papers with 218 distinct authors in total. A focus of the analysis is the visualization of co-authorship networks in this interdisciplinary eld. We used standard network analytic measures like degree and betweenness centrality to de- scribe the co-authorship distribution in our NKOS dataset. We can see in our dataset that 15% (with degree=0) of authors had no co-authorship with others and 53% of them had a maximum of 3 cooperations with other authors. 32% had at least 4 co-authors for all of their papers. The NKOS co-author network in the "NKOS bibliography" is a typical co- authorship network with one relatively large component, many smaller components and many isolated co-authorships or triples.

0.048605204 = sum of:
  0.029965488 = product of:
    0.11986195 = sum of:
      0.11986195 = weight(_text_:authors in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11986195 = score(doc=917,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 917, 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=917)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.018639714 = product of:
    0.037279427 = sum of:
      0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037279427 = score(doc=917,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 917, 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=917)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Coauthorship prediction applies predictive analytics to bibliographic data to predict authors who are highly likely to be coauthors. In this study, we propose an approach for coauthorship prediction based on bibliographic network embedding through a graph-based bibliographic data model that can be used to model common bibliographic data, including papers, terms, sources, authors, departments, research interests, universities, and countries. A real-world dataset released by AMiner that includes more than 2 million papers, 8 million citations, and 1.7 million authors were integrated into a large bibliographic network using the proposed bibliographic data model. Translation-based methods were applied to the entities and relationships to generate their low-dimensional embeddings while preserving their connectivity information in the original bibliographic network. We applied machine learning algorithms to embeddings that represent the coauthorship relationships of the two authors and achieved high prediction results. The reference model, which is the combination of a network embedding size of 100, the most basic translation-based method, and a gradient boosting method achieved an F1 score of 0.9 and even higher scores are obtainable with different embedding sizes and more advanced embedding methods. Thus, the strengths of the proposed approach lie in its customizable components under a unified framework.

0.047794215 = sum of:
  0.02542656 = product of:
    0.10170624 = sum of:
      0.10170624 = weight(_text_:authors in 5140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10170624 = score(doc=5140,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
  0.022367656 = product of:
    0.044735312 = sum of:
      0.044735312 = weight(_text_:p in 5140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044735312 = score(doc=5140,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 5140, 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=5140)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.047794215 = sum of:
  0.02542656 = product of:
    0.10170624 = sum of:
      0.10170624 = weight(_text_:authors in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10170624 = score(doc=3593,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
  0.022367656 = product of:
    0.044735312 = sum of:
      0.044735312 = weight(_text_:p in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044735312 = score(doc=3593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 3593, 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=3593)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.