Search (408 results, page 1 of 21)

0.09976995 = sum of:
  0.029136134 = product of:
    0.11654454 = sum of:
      0.11654454 = weight(_text_:authors in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11654454 = score(doc=4633,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)
  0.070633814 = sum of:
    0.042559925 = weight(_text_:n in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042559925 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05180212 = queryNorm
        0.19055009 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    0.02807389 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02807389 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05180212 = 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)

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

0.09474343 = sum of:
  0.030903539 = product of:
    0.123614155 = sum of:
      0.123614155 = weight(_text_:authors in 1006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.123614155 = score(doc=1006,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 1006, 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=1006)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.06383989 = product of:
    0.12767978 = sum of:
      0.12767978 = weight(_text_:n in 1006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12767978 = score(doc=1006,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.57165027 = fieldWeight in 1006, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1006)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Fractional frequency distributions of, for example, authors with a certain (fractional) number of papers are very irregular and, therefore, not easy to model or to explain. This article gives a first attempt to this by assuming two simple Lotka laws (with exponent 2): one for the number of authors with n papers (total count here) and one for the number of papers with n authors, n E N. Based an an earlier made convolution model of Egghe, interpreted and reworked now for discrete scores, we are able to produce theoretical fractional frequency distributions with only one parameter, which are in very close agreement with the practical ones as found in a large dataset produced earlier by Rao. The article also shows that (irregular) fractional frequency distributions are a consequence of Lotka's law, and are not examples of breakdowns of this famous historical law.

0.08619051 = sum of:
  0.030903539 = product of:
    0.123614155 = sum of:
      0.123614155 = weight(_text_:authors in 4547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.123614155 = score(doc=4547,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 4547, 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=4547)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.055286966 = product of:
    0.11057393 = sum of:
      0.11057393 = weight(_text_:n in 4547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11057393 = score(doc=4547,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.49506366 = fieldWeight in 4547, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4547)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents an investigation of the role of social relations in the writing of scientific articles through the study of in-text citations. Does the fact that the author of an article knows the author whose work he or she cites have an impact on the context of the citation? Because citations are commonly used as criteria for research evaluation, it is important to question their social background to better understand how it impacts textual features. We studied a collection of science articles (N?=?123) from 5 disciplines and interviewed their authors (N?=?84) to: (a) identify the social relations between citing and cited authors; and (b) measure the correlation between a set of features related to in-text citations (N?=?6,956) and the identified social relations. Our pioneering work, mixing sociological and linguistic results, shows that social relations between authors can partly explain the variations of citations in terms of frequency, position and textual context.

0.080825955 = sum of:
  0.035684332 = product of:
    0.14273733 = sum of:
      0.14273733 = weight(_text_:authors in 1539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14273733 = score(doc=1539,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.60441905 = fieldWeight in 1539, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1539)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.04514162 = product of:
    0.09028324 = sum of:
      0.09028324 = weight(_text_:n in 1539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09028324 = score(doc=1539,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.40421778 = fieldWeight in 1539, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1539)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper provides a better understanding of the implications of researchers' social networks in bibliographic references. Using a set of chemistry papers and conducting interviews with their authors (n = 32), I characterize the type of relation the author has with the authors of the references contained in his/her paper (n = 3,623). I show that citation relationships do not always involve underlying personal exchanges and that unknown references are an essential component, revealing segmentations in scientific groups. The relationships implied by references are of various strengths and origins. Several inclusive social circles are then identified: co-authors, close acquaintances, colleagues, invisible colleges, peers, contactables, and strangers. I conclude that publication is a device that contributes to a relatively stable distribution among the various social circles that structure scientific sociability.

0.07702549 = product of:
  0.15405098 = sum of:
    0.15405098 = sum of:
      0.11895862 = weight(_text_:n in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11895862 = score(doc=992,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.53260374 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
      0.03509236 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03509236 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is the first study that evaluated the coverage of journals from Africa in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef. A list of active journals published in each of the 55 African countries was compiled from Ulrich's periodicals directory and African Journals Online (AJOL) website. Journal master lists for Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef were searched for the African journals. A total of 2,229 unique active African journals were identified from Ulrich (N = 2,117, 95.0%) and AJOL (N = 243, 10.9%) after removing duplicates. The volume of African journals in Web of Science and Scopus databases is 7.4% (N = 166) and 7.8% (N = 174), respectively, compared to the 45.6% (N = 1,017) covered in CrossRef. While making up only 17.% of all the African journals, South African journals had the best coverage in the two most authoritative databases, accounting for 73.5% and 62.1% of all the African journals in Web of Science and Scopus, respectively. In contrast, Nigeria published 44.5% of all the African journals. The distribution of the African journals is biased in favor of Medical, Life and Health Sciences and Humanities and the Arts in the three databases. The low representation of African journals in CrossRef, a free indexing infrastructure that could be harnessed for building an African-centric research indexing database, is concerning.

Date

22. 6.2023 14:09:06

0.07181624 = sum of:
  0.0398963 = product of:
    0.1595852 = sum of:
      0.1595852 = weight(_text_:authors in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1595852 = score(doc=824,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.67576104 = fieldWeight in 824, 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=824)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.031919945 = product of:
    0.06383989 = sum of:
      0.06383989 = weight(_text_:n in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06383989 = score(doc=824,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is a study about the relationships between authors and the main thematic categories in the papers published in the last five International ISKO Conferences, held between 2002 and 2010. The aim is to map the domain as ISKO conferences are considered the most representative forum in the field. The published papers are considered to indicate the relationships between authors and themes. The Classification Scheme for Knowledge Organization Literature (CSKOL) was used to categorize the papers. The theoretical and methodological foundations of the study can be found in the concept of domain analysis proposed by Hjørland. The analysis of the papers (n=146) led to the identification of the most productive authors, the networks representing the relationships between the authors as also the categories that constitute the primary areas of research.

0.070633814 = product of:
  0.14126763 = sum of:
    0.14126763 = sum of:
      0.08511985 = weight(_text_:n in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08511985 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.38110018 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
      0.05614778 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05614778 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1144, 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=1144)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30.12.2007 11:22:39

0.06735496 = sum of:
  0.029736945 = product of:
    0.11894778 = sum of:
      0.11894778 = weight(_text_:authors in 4370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11894778 = score(doc=4370,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 4370, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4370)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.03761802 = product of:
    0.07523604 = sum of:
      0.07523604 = weight(_text_:n in 4370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07523604 = score(doc=4370,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.33684817 = fieldWeight in 4370, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4370)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

0.06599411 = sum of:
  0.029136134 = product of:
    0.11654454 = sum of:
      0.11654454 = weight(_text_:authors in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11654454 = score(doc=81,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.49350607 = fieldWeight in 81, 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=81)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.036857978 = product of:
    0.073715955 = sum of:
      0.073715955 = weight(_text_:n in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.073715955 = score(doc=81,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.33004245 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Papers written by several authors can be classified according to the countries of the author affiliations. The empirical part of this paper consists of two datasets. One dataset consists of 1,035 papers retrieved via the search "pedagog*" in the years 2004 and 2005 (up to October) in Academic Search Elite which is a case where phi(m) = the number of papers with m =1, 2,3 ... authors is decreasing, hence most of the papers have a low number of authors. Here we find that #, m = the number of times a country occurs j times in a m-authored paper, j =1, ..., m-1 is decreasing and that # m, m is much higher than all the other #j, m values. The other dataset consists of 3,271 papers retrieved via the search "enzyme" in the year 2005 (up to October) in the same database which is a case of a non-decreasing phi(m): most papers have 3 or 4 authors and we even find many papers with a much higher number of authors. In this case we show again that # m, m is much higher than the other #j, m values but that #j, m is not decreasing anymore in j =1, ..., m-1, although #1, m is (apart from # m, m) the largest number amongst the #j,m. The combinatorial part gives a proof of the fact that #j,m decreases for j = 1, m-1, supposing that all cases are equally possible. This shows that the first dataset is more conform with this model than the second dataset. Explanations for these findings are given. From the data we also find the (we think: new) distribution of number of papers with n =1, 2,3,... countries (i.e. where there are n different countries involved amongst the m (a n) authors of a paper): a fast decreasing function e.g. as a power law with a very large Lotka exponent.

0.06475962 = sum of:
  0.0437042 = product of:
    0.1748168 = sum of:
      0.1748168 = weight(_text_:authors in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1748168 = score(doc=853,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)
  0.021055417 = product of:
    0.042110834 = sum of:
      0.042110834 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042110834 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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

0.06337097 = sum of:
  0.025752952 = product of:
    0.10301181 = sum of:
      0.10301181 = weight(_text_:authors in 1727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10301181 = score(doc=1727,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 1727, 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=1727)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.03761802 = product of:
    0.07523604 = sum of:
      0.07523604 = weight(_text_:n in 1727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07523604 = score(doc=1727,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.33684817 = fieldWeight in 1727, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1727)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study examines whether there are some general trends across subject fields regarding the factors affecting the number of citations of articles, focusing especially on those factors that are not directly related to the quality or content of articles (extrinsic factors). For this purpose, from 6 selected subject fields (condensed matter physics, inorganic and nuclear chemistry, electric and electronic engineering, biochemistry and molecular biology, physiology, and gastroenterology), original articles published in the same year were sampled (n?=?230-240 for each field). Then, the citation counts received by the articles in relatively long citation windows (6 and 11 years after publication) were predicted by negative binomial multiple regression (NBMR) analysis for each field. Various article features about author collaboration, cited references, visibility, authors' achievements (measured by past publications and citedness), and publishing journals were considered as the explanatory variables of NBMR. Some generality across the fields was found with regard to the selected predicting factors and the degree of significance of these predictors. The Price index was the strongest predictor of citations, and number of references was the next. The effects of number of authors and authors' achievement measures were rather weak.

0.06298378 = sum of:
  0.017842166 = product of:
    0.071368665 = sum of:
      0.071368665 = weight(_text_:authors in 3464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.071368665 = score(doc=3464,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3464, 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=3464)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.04514162 = product of:
    0.09028324 = sum of:
      0.09028324 = weight(_text_:n in 3464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09028324 = score(doc=3464,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.40421778 = fieldWeight in 3464, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3464)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The discrete Lotka power function describes the number of sources (e.g., authors) with n = 1, 2, 3, ... items (e.g., publications). As in econometrics, informetrics theory requires functions of a continuous variable j, replacing the discrete variable n. Now j represents item densities instead of number of items. The continuous Lotka power function describes the density of sources with item density j. The discrete Lotka function one obtains from data, obtained empirically; the continuous Lotka function is the one needed when one wants to apply Lotkaian informetrics, i.e., to determine properties that can be derived from the (continuous) model. It is, hence, important to know the relations between the two models. We show that the exponents of the discrete Lotka function (if not too high, i.e., within limits encountered in practice) and of the continuous Lotka function are approximately the same. This is important to know in applying theoretical results (from the continuous model), derived from practical data.

0.06282348 = sum of:
  0.030903539 = product of:
    0.123614155 = sum of:
      0.123614155 = weight(_text_:authors in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.123614155 = score(doc=3765,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 3765, 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=3765)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.031919945 = product of:
    0.06383989 = sum of:
      0.06383989 = weight(_text_:n in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06383989 = score(doc=3765,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 3765, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3765)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Big Science and cross-disciplinary collaborations have reshaped the intellectual structure of research areas. A number of works have tried to uncover this hidden intellectual structure by analyzing citation contexts. However, none of them analyzed by document logical structures such as sections. The two major goals of this study are to find characteristics of authors who are highly cited section-wise and to identify the differences in section-wise author networks. This study uses 29,158 of research articles culled from the ACL Anthology, which hosts articles on computational linguistics and natural language processing. We find that the distribution of citations across sections is skewed and that a different set of highly cited authors share distinct academic characteristics, according to their citation locations. Furthermore, the author networks based on citation context similarity reveal that the intellectual structure of a domain differs across different sections.

0.059600573 = sum of:
  0.042054392 = product of:
    0.16821757 = sum of:
      0.16821757 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16821757 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)
  0.01754618 = product of:
    0.03509236 = sum of:
      0.03509236 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03509236 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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

0.054002725 = sum of:
  0.029438073 = product of:
    0.11775229 = sum of:
      0.11775229 = weight(_text_:authors in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11775229 = score(doc=3030,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)
  0.024564654 = product of:
    0.049129307 = sum of:
      0.049129307 = weight(_text_:22 in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049129307 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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

0.052975364 = product of:
  0.10595073 = sum of:
    0.10595073 = sum of:
      0.06383989 = weight(_text_:n in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06383989 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
      0.042110834 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042110834 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

0.052352905 = sum of:
  0.025752952 = product of:
    0.10301181 = sum of:
      0.10301181 = weight(_text_:authors in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10301181 = score(doc=1850,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 1850, 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=1850)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.026599953 = product of:
    0.053199906 = sum of:
      0.053199906 = weight(_text_:n in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053199906 = score(doc=1850,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 1850, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1850)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

International collaboration tends to result in more highly cited research and, partly as a result of this, many research funding schemes are specifically international in scope. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether this citation advantage is the result of higher quality research or due to other factors, such as a larger audience for the publications. To test whether the apparent advantage of internationally collaborative research may be due to additional interest in articles from the countries of the authors, this article assesses the extent to which the national affiliations of the authors of articles affect the national affiliations of their Mendeley readers. Based on English-language Web of Science articles in 10 fields from science, medicine, social science, and the humanities, the results of statistical models comparing author and reader affiliations suggest that, in most fields, Mendeley users are disproportionately readers of articles authored from within their own country. In addition, there are several cases in which Mendeley users from certain countries tend to ignore articles from specific other countries, although it is not clear whether this reflects national biases or different national specialisms within a field. In conclusion, research funders should not incentivize international collaboration on the basis that it is, in general, higher quality because its higher impact may be primarily due to its larger audience. Moreover, authors should guard against national biases in their reading to select only the best and most relevant publications to inform their research.

0.051958956 = sum of:
  0.030903539 = product of:
    0.123614155 = sum of:
      0.123614155 = weight(_text_:authors in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.123614155 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)
  0.021055417 = product of:
    0.042110834 = sum of:
      0.042110834 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042110834 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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

0.051413998 = product of:
  0.102827996 = sum of:
    0.102827996 = sum of:
      0.053199906 = weight(_text_:n in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053199906 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.049628094 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049628094 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.

0.050567 = sum of:
  0.025752952 = product of:
    0.10301181 = sum of:
      0.10301181 = weight(_text_:authors in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10301181 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)
  0.024814047 = product of:
    0.049628094 = sum of:
      0.049628094 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049628094 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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