Search (372 results, page 1 of 19)

0.11602857 = sum of:
  0.016907735 = product of:
    0.06763094 = sum of:
      0.06763094 = weight(_text_:authors in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06763094 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.09912083 = product of:
    0.19824167 = sum of:
      0.19824167 = weight(_text_:h.f in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19824167 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38314402 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.5174077 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Gives an outline of a new bibliometric database based upon all articles published by authors from the Netherlands and processed during 1980-1993 by ISI for the SCI, SSCI and AHCI. Describes various types of information added to the database: data on articles citing the Dutch publications; detailed citation data on ISI journals and subfields; and a classification system of the main publishing organizations. Also gives an overview of the types of bibliometric indicators constructed. and discusses their relationship to indicators developed by other researchers in the field. Gives 2 applications to illustrate the potentials of the database and of the bibliometric indicators derived from it: one that represents a synthesis of 'classical' macro indicator studies on the one hand and bibliometric analyses of research groups on the other; and a second that gives for the first time a detailed analysis of a country's publications per institutional sector

0.115640976 = product of:
  0.23128195 = sum of:
    0.23128195 = product of:
      0.4625639 = sum of:
        0.4625639 = weight(_text_:h.f in 2904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4625639 = score(doc=2904,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38314402 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049089137 = queryNorm
            1.2072847 = fieldWeight in 2904, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2904)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.09922795 = product of:
  0.1984559 = sum of:
    0.1984559 = sum of:
      0.1652014 = weight(_text_:h.f in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1652014 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38314402 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.43117312 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
      0.0332545 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0332545 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2016 14:11:17

0.096690476 = sum of:
  0.014089779 = product of:
    0.056359116 = sum of:
      0.056359116 = weight(_text_:authors in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056359116 = score(doc=621,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 621, 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=621)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0826007 = product of:
    0.1652014 = sum of:
      0.1652014 = weight(_text_:h.f in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1652014 = score(doc=621,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38314402 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.43117312 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article statistically analyzes how the citation impact of articles deposited in the Condensed Matter section of the preprint server ArXiv (hosted by Cornell University), and subsequently published in a scientific journal, compares to that of articles in the same journal that were not deposited in the archive. Its principal aim is to further illustrate and roughly estimate the effect of two factors, early view and quality bias, on differences in citation impact between these two sets of papers, using citation data from Thomson Scientific's Web of Science. It presents estimates for a number of journals in the field of condensed matter physics. To discriminate between an open access effect and an early view effect, longitudinal citation data were analyzed covering a time period as long as 7 years. Quality bias was measured by calculating ArXiv citation impact differentials at the level of individual authors publishing in a journal, taking into account coauthorship. The analysis provided evidence of a strong quality bias and early view effect. Correcting for these effects, there is in a sample of six condensed matter physics journals studied in detail no sign of a general open access advantage of papers deposited in ArXiv. The study does provide evidence that ArXiv accelerates citation due to the fact that ArXiv makes papers available earlier rather than makes them freely available.

0.08560394 = sum of:
  0.019523373 = product of:
    0.07809349 = sum of:
      0.07809349 = weight(_text_:authors in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07809349 = score(doc=1734,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.34896153 = fieldWeight in 1734, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1734)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.06608056 = product of:
    0.13216113 = sum of:
      0.13216113 = weight(_text_:h.f in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13216113 = score(doc=1734,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38314402 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.3449385 = fieldWeight in 1734, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1734)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of the use of the citation-based journal impact factor for evaluative purposes upon the behaviour of authors and editors. It seeks to give a critical examination of a number of claims as regards the manipulability of this indicator on the basis of an empirical analysis of publication and referencing practices of authors and journal editors Design/methodology/approach - The paper describes mechanisms that may affect the numerical values of journal impact factors. It also analyses general, "macro" patterns in large samples of journals in order to obtain indications of the extent to which such mechanisms are actually applied on a large scale. Finally it presents case studies of particular science journals in order to illustrate what their effects may be in individual cases. Findings - The paper shows that the commonly used journal impact factor can to some extent be relatively easily manipulated. It discusses several types of strategic editorial behaviour, and presents cases in which journal impact factors were - intentionally or otherwise - affected by particular editorial strategies. These findings lead to the conclusion that one must be most careful in interpreting and using journal impact factors, and that authors, editors and policy makers must be aware of their potential manipulability. They also show that some mechanisms occur as of yet rather infrequently, while for others it is most difficult if not impossible to assess empirically how often they are actually applied. If their frequency of occurrence increases, one should come to the conclusion that the impact of impact factors is decreasing. Originality/value - The paper systematically describes a number of claims about the manipulability of journal impact factors that are often based on "informal" or even anecdotal evidences and illustrates how these claims can be further examined in thorough empirical research of large data samples.

0.06608056 = product of:
  0.13216113 = sum of:
    0.13216113 = product of:
      0.26432225 = sum of:
        0.26432225 = weight(_text_:h.f in 5073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26432225 = score(doc=5073,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38314402 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049089137 = queryNorm
            0.689877 = fieldWeight in 5073, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5073)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.06608056 = product of:
  0.13216113 = sum of:
    0.13216113 = product of:
      0.26432225 = sum of:
        0.26432225 = weight(_text_:h.f in 6692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26432225 = score(doc=6692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38314402 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049089137 = queryNorm
            0.689877 = fieldWeight in 6692, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.061368022 = sum of:
  0.041415323 = product of:
    0.16566129 = sum of:
      0.16566129 = weight(_text_:authors in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16566129 = score(doc=853,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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)
  0.0199527 = product of:
    0.0399054 = sum of:
      0.0399054 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0399054 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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

0.056479163 = sum of:
  0.039851915 = product of:
    0.15940766 = sum of:
      0.15940766 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15940766 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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)
  0.01662725 = product of:
    0.0332545 = sum of:
      0.0332545 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0332545 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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

0.05117449 = sum of:
  0.02789634 = product of:
    0.11158536 = sum of:
      0.11158536 = weight(_text_:authors in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11158536 = score(doc=3030,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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)
  0.02327815 = product of:
    0.0465563 = sum of:
      0.0465563 = weight(_text_:22 in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0465563 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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

0.049560416 = product of:
  0.09912083 = sum of:
    0.09912083 = product of:
      0.19824167 = sum of:
        0.19824167 = weight(_text_:h.f in 2941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19824167 = score(doc=2941,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38314402 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049089137 = queryNorm
            0.5174077 = fieldWeight in 2941, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.049237758 = sum of:
  0.029285057 = product of:
    0.117140226 = sum of:
      0.117140226 = weight(_text_:authors in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.117140226 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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)
  0.0199527 = product of:
    0.0399054 = sum of:
      0.0399054 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0399054 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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

0.0479187 = sum of:
  0.024404217 = product of:
    0.097616866 = sum of:
      0.097616866 = weight(_text_:authors in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.097616866 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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)
  0.023514483 = product of:
    0.047028966 = sum of:
      0.047028966 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047028966 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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

0.0479187 = sum of:
  0.024404217 = product of:
    0.097616866 = sum of:
      0.097616866 = weight(_text_:authors in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.097616866 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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)
  0.023514483 = product of:
    0.047028966 = sum of:
      0.047028966 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047028966 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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

0.043863848 = sum of:
  0.023911148 = product of:
    0.09564459 = sum of:
      0.09564459 = weight(_text_:authors in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09564459 = score(doc=2751,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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)
  0.0199527 = product of:
    0.0399054 = sum of:
      0.0399054 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0399054 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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

0.043863848 = sum of:
  0.023911148 = product of:
    0.09564459 = sum of:
      0.09564459 = weight(_text_:authors in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09564459 = score(doc=918,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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)
  0.0199527 = product of:
    0.0399054 = sum of:
      0.0399054 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0399054 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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

0.043003842 = sum of:
  0.01972569 = product of:
    0.07890276 = sum of:
      0.07890276 = weight(_text_:authors in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07890276 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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)
  0.02327815 = product of:
    0.0465563 = sum of:
      0.0465563 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0465563 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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

0.04282813 = sum of:
  0.031189056 = product of:
    0.124756224 = sum of:
      0.124756224 = weight(_text_:authors in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.124756224 = score(doc=2597,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.55747443 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.011639075 = product of:
    0.02327815 = sum of:
      0.02327815 = weight(_text_:22 in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02327815 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the author self-citation behavior in the field of Library and Information Science. Various factors governing the author self-citation behavior have also been studied. Design/methodology/approach The 2012 edition of Social Science Citation Index was consulted for the selection of LIS journals. Under the subject heading "Information Science and Library Science" there were 84 journals and out of these 12 journals were selected for the study based on systematic sampling. The study was confined to original research and review articles that were published in select journals in the year 2009. The main reason to choose 2009 was to get at least five years (2009-2013) citation data from Web of Science Core Collection (excluding Book Citation Index) and SciELO Citation Index. A citation was treated as self-citation whenever one of the authors of citing and cited paper was common, i.e., the set of co-authors of the citing paper and that of the cited one are not disjoint. To minimize the risk of homonyms, spelling variances and misspelling in authors' names, the authors compared full author names in citing and cited articles. Findings A positive correlation between number of authors and total number of citations exists with no correlation between number of authors and number/share of self-citations, i.e., self-citations are not affected by the number of co-authors in a paper. Articles which are produced in collaboration attract more self-citations than articles produced by only one author. There is no statistically significant variation in citations counts (total and self-citations) in works that are result of different types of collaboration. A strong and statistically significant positive correlation exists between total citation count and frequency of self-citations. No relation could be ascertained between total citation count and proportion of self-citations. Authors tend to cite more of their recent works than the work of other authors. Total citation count and number of self-citations are positively correlated with the impact factor of source publication and correlation coefficient for total citations is much higher than that for self-citations. A negative correlation exhibits between impact factor and the share of self-citations. Of particular note is that the correlation in all the cases is of weak nature. Research limitations/implications The research provides an understanding of the author self-citations in the field of LIS. readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study. Originality/value Readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.04130035 = product of:
  0.0826007 = sum of:
    0.0826007 = product of:
      0.1652014 = sum of:
        0.1652014 = weight(_text_:h.f in 1049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1652014 = score(doc=1049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38314402 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049089137 = queryNorm
            0.43117312 = fieldWeight in 1049, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1049)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.040912017 = sum of:
  0.027610214 = product of:
    0.11044086 = sum of:
      0.11044086 = weight(_text_:authors in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11044086 = score(doc=4633,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.49350607 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.013301801 = product of:
    0.026603602 = sum of:
      0.026603602 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026603602 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, 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=4633)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX. Design/methodology/approach The authors perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, platform offers for books. The authors use two distinct data sets of books. On the one hand, the authors analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other hand, the authors use Clarivate's Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com's capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, the authors compare the findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX. Findings Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries, such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, the authors find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. The comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools. Practical implications This study targets different audience which can benefit from the findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool. Originality/value This is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com's functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via PlumX.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22