Search (476 results, page 1 of 24)

0.09900713 = sum of:
  0.015003799 = product of:
    0.060015198 = sum of:
      0.060015198 = weight(_text_:authors in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060015198 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.08400333 = sum of:
    0.04859157 = weight(_text_:c in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04859157 = score(doc=5272,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18031284 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052273605 = queryNorm
        0.2694848 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
    0.03541176 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03541176 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052273605 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)

Abstract

This article describes the latest development of a generic approach to detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. The work makes substantial theoretical and methodological contributions to progressive knowledge domain visualization. A specialty is conceptualized and visualized as a time-variant duality between two fundamental concepts in information science: research fronts and intellectual bases. A research front is defined as an emergent and transient grouping of concepts and underlying research issues. The intellectual base of a research front is its citation and co-citation footprint in scientific literature - an evolving network of scientific publications cited by research-front concepts. Kleinberg's (2002) burst-detection algorithm is adapted to identify emergent research-front concepts. Freeman's (1979) betweenness centrality metric is used to highlight potential pivotal points of paradigm shift over time. Two complementary visualization views are designed and implemented: cluster views and time-zone views. The contributions of the approach are that (a) the nature of an intellectual base is algorithmically and temporally identified by emergent research-front terms, (b) the value of a co-citation cluster is explicitly interpreted in terms of research-front concepts, and (c) visually prominent and algorithmically detected pivotal points substantially reduce the complexity of a visualized network. The modeling and visualization process is implemented in CiteSpace II, a Java application, and applied to the analysis of two research fields: mass extinction (1981-2004) and terrorism (1990-2003). Prominent trends and pivotal points in visualized networks were verified in collaboration with domain experts, who are the authors of pivotal-point articles. Practical implications of the work are discussed. A number of challenges and opportunities for future studies are identified.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:11:05

0.065349035 = sum of:
  0.04410198 = product of:
    0.17640792 = sum of:
      0.17640792 = weight(_text_:authors in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17640792 = score(doc=853,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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)
  0.021247055 = product of:
    0.04249411 = sum of:
      0.04249411 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04249411 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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

0.060875073 = sum of:
  0.040259417 = product of:
    0.16103767 = sum of:
      0.16103767 = weight(_text_:authors in 2389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16103767 = score(doc=2389,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = queryNorm
          0.67576104 = fieldWeight in 2389, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2389)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.020615656 = product of:
    0.04123131 = sum of:
      0.04123131 = weight(_text_:c in 2389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04123131 = score(doc=2389,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18031284 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = queryNorm
          0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 2389, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2389)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article analyzes the collaboration trends, authorship and keywords of all research articles published in the Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST). Comparing the articles between two 10-year periods, namely, 1988-1997 and 1998-2007, the three-fold objectives are to analyze the shifts in (a) authors' collaboration trends (b) top authors, their affiliations as well as the pattern of coauthorship among them, and (c) top keywords and the subdisciplines from which they emerge. The findings reveal a distinct tendency towards collaboration among authors, with external collaborations becoming more prevalent. Top authors have grown in diversity from those being affiliated predominantly with library/information-related departments to include those from information systems management, information technology, businesss, and the humanities. Amid heterogeneous clusters of collaboration among top authors, strongly connected cross-disciplinary coauthor pairs have become more prevalent. Correspondingly, the distribution of top keywords' occurrences that leans heavily on core information science has shifted towards other subdisciplines such as information technology and sociobehavioral science.

0.060143035 = sum of:
  0.042437155 = product of:
    0.16974862 = sum of:
      0.16974862 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16974862 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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)
  0.01770588 = product of:
    0.03541176 = sum of:
      0.03541176 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541176 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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

0.059616864 = sum of:
  0.042437155 = product of:
    0.16974862 = sum of:
      0.16974862 = weight(_text_:authors in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16974862 = score(doc=3231,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = queryNorm
          0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01717971 = product of:
    0.03435942 = sum of:
      0.03435942 = weight(_text_:c in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03435942 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18031284 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = queryNorm
          0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.

0.056954417 = product of:
  0.113908835 = sum of:
    0.113908835 = sum of:
      0.071414724 = weight(_text_:c in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.071414724 = score(doc=1352,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.18031284 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = queryNorm
          0.3960601 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
      0.04249411 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04249411 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2014 17:11:29

0.05581695 = product of:
  0.1116339 = sum of:
    0.1116339 = sum of:
      0.054975078 = weight(_text_:c in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054975078 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18031284 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = queryNorm
          0.3048872 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
      0.056658816 = weight(_text_:22 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056658816 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5092, 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=5092)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Presents a list of 53 periodicals in 22 subject fields which regularly provide bibliographies of theses, research in progress and patents in their particular subject field. The fields of business, economics, history and literature have most periodical listings of dissertations and theses. Also lists 63 periodicals in 25 sub-disciplines which provide rankings or ratings. Rankings and ratings information predominates in the fields of business, sports and games, finance and banking, and library and information science

0.05449424 = sum of:
  0.029706007 = product of:
    0.11882403 = sum of:
      0.11882403 = weight(_text_:authors in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11882403 = score(doc=3030,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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)
  0.02478823 = product of:
    0.04957646 = sum of:
      0.04957646 = weight(_text_:22 in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04957646 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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

0.052431867 = sum of:
  0.031184811 = product of:
    0.124739245 = sum of:
      0.124739245 = weight(_text_:authors in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.124739245 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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)
  0.021247055 = product of:
    0.04249411 = sum of:
      0.04249411 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04249411 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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

0.05102724 = sum of:
  0.025987346 = product of:
    0.10394938 = sum of:
      0.10394938 = weight(_text_:authors in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10394938 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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)
  0.025039895 = product of:
    0.05007979 = sum of:
      0.05007979 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05007979 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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

0.05102724 = sum of:
  0.025987346 = product of:
    0.10394938 = sum of:
      0.10394938 = weight(_text_:authors in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10394938 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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)
  0.025039895 = product of:
    0.05007979 = sum of:
      0.05007979 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05007979 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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

0.05086499 = sum of:
  0.0090022795 = product of:
    0.036009118 = sum of:
      0.036009118 = weight(_text_:authors in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036009118 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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)
  0.04186271 = sum of:
    0.020615656 = weight(_text_:c in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020615656 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18031284 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052273605 = queryNorm
        0.114332706 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.021247055 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021247055 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052273605 = queryNorm
        0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)

Abstract

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

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.048839826 = product of:
  0.09767965 = sum of:
    0.09767965 = sum of:
      0.04810319 = weight(_text_:c in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04810319 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18031284 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = queryNorm
          0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
      0.04957646 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04957646 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 900, 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=900)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2013 14:04:09

0.04718731 = sum of:
  0.030007599 = product of:
    0.120030396 = sum of:
      0.120030396 = weight(_text_:authors in 4444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.120030396 = score(doc=4444,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = queryNorm
          0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 4444, 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=4444)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01717971 = product of:
    0.03435942 = sum of:
      0.03435942 = weight(_text_:c in 4444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03435942 = score(doc=4444,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18031284 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = queryNorm
          0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 4444, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4444)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Studying scientific collaboration using coauthorship networks has attracted much attention in recent years. How and in what context two authors collaborate remain among the major questions. Previous studies, however, have focused on either exploring the global topology of coauthorship networks (macro perspective) or ranking the impact of individual authors (micro perspective). Neither of them has provided information on the context of the collaboration between two specific authors, which may potentially imply rich socioeconomic, disciplinary, and institutional information on collaboration. Different from the macro perspective and micro perspective, this article proposes a novel method (meso perspective) to analyze scientific collaboration, in which a contextual subgraph is extracted as the unit of analysis. A contextual subgraph is defined as a small subgraph of a large-scale coauthorship network that captures relationship and context between two coauthors. This method is applied to the field of library and information science. Topological properties of all the subgraphs in four time spans are investigated, including size, average degree, clustering coefficient, and network centralization. Results show that contextual subgprahs capture useful contextual information on two authors' collaboration.

0.04718731 = sum of:
  0.030007599 = product of:
    0.120030396 = sum of:
      0.120030396 = weight(_text_:authors in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.120030396 = score(doc=917,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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)
  0.01717971 = product of:
    0.03435942 = sum of:
      0.03435942 = weight(_text_:c in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03435942 = score(doc=917,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18031284 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = queryNorm
          0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, 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.

0.046709348 = sum of:
  0.025462292 = product of:
    0.10184917 = sum of:
      0.10184917 = weight(_text_:authors in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10184917 = score(doc=2751,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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)
  0.021247055 = product of:
    0.04249411 = sum of:
      0.04249411 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04249411 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.046709348 = sum of:
  0.025462292 = product of:
    0.10184917 = sum of:
      0.10184917 = weight(_text_:authors in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10184917 = score(doc=918,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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)
  0.021247055 = product of:
    0.04249411 = sum of:
      0.04249411 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04249411 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.046077948 = sum of:
  0.025462292 = product of:
    0.10184917 = sum of:
      0.10184917 = weight(_text_:authors in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10184917 = score(doc=4011,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 4011, 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=4011)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.020615656 = product of:
    0.04123131 = sum of:
      0.04123131 = weight(_text_:c in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04123131 = score(doc=4011,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18031284 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = queryNorm
          0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Scientific collaboration is essential in solving problems and breeding innovation. Coauthor network analysis has been utilized to study scholars' collaborations for a long time, but these studies have not simultaneously taken different collaboration features into consideration. In this paper, we present a systematic approach to analyze the differences in possibilities that two authors will cooperate as seen from the effects of homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment. Exponential random graph models (ERGMs) are applied in this research. We find that different types of publications one author has written play diverse roles in his/her collaborations. An author's tendency to form new collaborations with her/his coauthors' collaborators is strong, where the more coauthors one author had before, the more new collaborators he/she will attract. We demonstrate that considering the authors' attributes and homophily effects as well as the transitivity and preferential attachment effects of the coauthorship network in which they are embedded helps us gain a comprehensive understanding of scientific collaboration.

0.046077948 = sum of:
  0.025462292 = product of:
    0.10184917 = sum of:
      0.10184917 = weight(_text_:authors in 5388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10184917 = score(doc=5388,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 5388, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5388)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.020615656 = product of:
    0.04123131 = sum of:
      0.04123131 = weight(_text_:c in 5388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04123131 = score(doc=5388,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18031284 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = queryNorm
          0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 5388, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5388)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the significant development of China's economy and scientific activity, its scientific publication activity is experiencing a period of rapid growth. However, measuring China's research output remains a challenge because Chinese scholars may publish their research in either international or national journals, yet no bibliometric database covers both the Chinese and English scientific literature. The purpose of this study is to compare Web of Science (WoS) with a Chinese bibliometric database in terms of authors and their performance, demonstrate the extent of the overlap between the two groups of Chinese most productive authors in both international and Chinese bibliometric databases, and determine how different disciplines may affect this overlap. The results of this study indicate that Chinese bibliometric databases, or a combination of WoS and Chinese bibliometric databases, should be used to evaluate Chinese research performance except in the few disciplines in which Chinese research performance could be assessed using WoS only.

0.04579355 = sum of:
  0.021005318 = product of:
    0.08402127 = sum of:
      0.08402127 = weight(_text_:authors in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08402127 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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)
  0.02478823 = product of:
    0.04957646 = sum of:
      0.04957646 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04957646 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18305326 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052273605 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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