Search (576 results, page 1 of 29)

0.08253631 = sum of:
  0.018147085 = product of:
    0.07258834 = sum of:
      0.07258834 = weight(_text_:authors in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07258834 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.06438923 = sum of:
    0.021558736 = weight(_text_:h in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021558736 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052687407 = queryNorm
        0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
    0.042830497 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042830497 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052687407 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)

Abstract

Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.

Date

3. 1.2007 17:22:03

0.075044245 = sum of:
  0.021386545 = product of:
    0.08554618 = sum of:
      0.08554618 = weight(_text_:authors in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08554618 = score(doc=4959,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.053657696 = sum of:
    0.017965615 = weight(_text_:h in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017965615 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052687407 = queryNorm
        0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
    0.03569208 = weight(_text_:22 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03569208 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052687407 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4959, 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=4959)

Abstract

This study uses three bibliometric methods: direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-authorship analysis, to investigate interdisciplinary changes in library and information science (LIS) from 1978 to 2007. The results reveal that LIS researchers most frequently cite publications in their own discipline. In addition, half of all co-authors of LIS articles are affiliated with LIS-related institutes. The results confirm that the degree of interdisciplinarity within LIS has increased, particularly co-authorship. However, the study found sources of direct citations in LIS articles are widely distributed across 30 disciplines, but co-authors of LIS articles are distributed across only 25 disciplines. The degree of interdisciplinarity was found ranging from 0.61 to 0.82 with citation to references in all articles being the highest and that of co-authorship being the lowest. Percentages of contribution attributable to LIS show a decreasing tendency based on the results of direct citation and co-authorship analysis, but an increasing tendency based on those of bibliographic coupling analysis. Such differences indicate each of the three bibliometric methods has its strength and provides insights respectively for viewing various aspects of interdisciplinarity, suggesting the use of no single bibliometric method can reveal all aspects of interdisciplinarity due to its multifaceted nature.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.22-33

0.07493975 = sum of:
  0.044451095 = product of:
    0.17780438 = sum of:
      0.17780438 = weight(_text_:authors in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17780438 = score(doc=1878,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = queryNorm
          0.7402591 = fieldWeight in 1878, 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=1878)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.030488657 = product of:
    0.060977314 = sum of:
      0.060977314 = weight(_text_:h in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060977314 = score(doc=1878,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = queryNorm
          0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, for any group of authors, we define three different h-indices. First, there is the successive h-index h2 based on the ranked list of authors and their h-indices h1 as defined by Schubert (2007). Next, there is the h-index hP based on the ranked list of authors and their number of publications. Finally, there is the h-index hC based on the ranked list of authors and their number of citations. We present formulae for these three indices in Lotkaian informetrics from which it also follows that h2 < hp < hc. We give a concrete example of a group of 167 authors on the topic optical flow estimation. Besides these three h-indices, we also calculate the two-by-two Spearman rank correlation coefficient and prove that these rankings are significantly related.

Object

h-index

0.06586634 = sum of:
  0.044451095 = product of:
    0.17780438 = sum of:
      0.17780438 = weight(_text_:authors in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17780438 = score(doc=853,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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)
  0.021415249 = product of:
    0.042830497 = sum of:
      0.042830497 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042830497 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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

0.06061913 = sum of:
  0.04277309 = product of:
    0.17109236 = sum of:
      0.17109236 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17109236 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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)
  0.01784604 = product of:
    0.03569208 = sum of:
      0.03569208 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03569208 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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

0.060128246 = sum of:
  0.042343196 = product of:
    0.16937278 = sum of:
      0.16937278 = weight(_text_:authors in 4709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16937278 = score(doc=4709,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = queryNorm
          0.70515555 = fieldWeight in 4709, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4709)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01778505 = product of:
    0.0355701 = sum of:
      0.0355701 = weight(_text_:h in 4709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0355701 = score(doc=4709,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = queryNorm
          0.27173662 = fieldWeight in 4709, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4709)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes a study which examined the scholarly literature of sociology. Tens of thousands of references from monographs and leading academic journals were analyzed. The relative rankings of authors who were highly cited in the monographic literature did not change in the journal literature of the same period. However, there was only a small overlap between the most highly cited authors based on the journal sample and those based on the monograph sample. The lack of correlation suggests that there may be 2 distinct populations of highly cited authors

0.059695423 = sum of:
  0.044451095 = product of:
    0.17780438 = sum of:
      0.17780438 = weight(_text_:authors in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17780438 = score(doc=3161,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = queryNorm
          0.7402591 = fieldWeight in 3161, 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=3161)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.015244328 = product of:
    0.030488657 = sum of:
      0.030488657 = weight(_text_:h in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030488657 = score(doc=3161,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = queryNorm
          0.2329171 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper studies how varied damping factors in the PageRank algorithm influence the ranking of authors and proposes weighted PageRank algorithms. We selected the 108 most highly cited authors in the information retrieval (IR) area from the 1970s to 2008 to form the author co-citation network. We calculated the ranks of these 108 authors based on PageRank with the damping factor ranging from 0.05 to 0.95. In order to test the relationship between different measures, we compared PageRank and weighted PageRank results with the citation ranking, h-index, and centrality measures. We found that in our author co-citation network, citation rank is highly correlated with PageRank with different damping factors and also with different weighted PageRank algorithms; citation rank and PageRank are not significantly correlated with centrality measures; and h-index rank does not significantly correlate with centrality measures but does significantly correlate with other measures. The key factors that have impact on the PageRank of authors in the author co-citation network are being co-cited with important authors.

0.054925617 = sum of:
  0.02994116 = product of:
    0.11976464 = sum of:
      0.11976464 = weight(_text_:authors in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11976464 = score(doc=3030,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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)
  0.024984457 = product of:
    0.049968913 = sum of:
      0.049968913 = weight(_text_:22 in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049968913 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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

0.05294109 = sum of:
  0.02419611 = product of:
    0.09678444 = sum of:
      0.09678444 = weight(_text_:authors in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09678444 = score(doc=196,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = queryNorm
          0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=196)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.028744983 = product of:
    0.057489965 = sum of:
      0.057489965 = weight(_text_:h in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057489965 = score(doc=196,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = queryNorm
          0.4391927 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=196)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors apply a new bibliometric measure, the h-index (Hirsch, 2005), to the literature of information science. Faculty rankings based on raw citation counts are compared with those based on h-counts. There is a strong positive correlation between the two sets of rankings. It is shown how the h-index can be used to express the broad impact of a scholar's research output over time in more nuanced fashion than straight citation counts.

0.05284692 = sum of:
  0.03143167 = product of:
    0.12572668 = sum of:
      0.12572668 = weight(_text_:authors in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12572668 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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)
  0.021415249 = product of:
    0.042830497 = sum of:
      0.042830497 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042830497 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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

0.051431175 = sum of:
  0.026193064 = product of:
    0.104772255 = sum of:
      0.104772255 = weight(_text_:authors in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.104772255 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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)
  0.025238112 = product of:
    0.050476223 = sum of:
      0.050476223 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050476223 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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

0.051431175 = sum of:
  0.026193064 = product of:
    0.104772255 = sum of:
      0.104772255 = weight(_text_:authors in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.104772255 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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)
  0.025238112 = product of:
    0.050476223 = sum of:
      0.050476223 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050476223 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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

0.049934775 = product of:
  0.09986955 = sum of:
    0.09986955 = sum of:
      0.057039056 = weight(_text_:h in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057039056 = score(doc=590,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = queryNorm
          0.435748 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
      0.042830497 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042830497 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Zur Kurzmitteilung "Latest enhancements in Scopus: ... h-Index incorporated in Scopus" in den letzten Online-Mitteilungen (Online-Mitteilungen 92, S.31) ist zu korrigieren, dass der h-Index sehr wohl bereits im Web of Science enthalten ist. Allerdings findet man/frau diese Information nicht in der "cited ref search", sondern neben der Trefferliste einer Quick Search, General Search oder einer Suche über den Author Finder in der rechten Navigationsleiste unter dem Titel "Citation Report". Der "Citation Report" bietet für die in der jeweiligen Trefferliste angezeigten Arbeiten: - Die Gesamtzahl der Zitierungen aller Arbeiten in der Trefferliste - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten - Die Anzahl der Zitierungen der einzelnen Arbeiten, aufgeschlüsselt nach Publikationsjahr der zitierenden Arbeiten - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten pro Jahr - Den h-Index (ein h-Index von x sagt aus, dass x Arbeiten der Trefferliste mehr als x-mal zitiert wurden; er ist gegenüber sehr hohen Zitierungen einzelner Arbeiten unempfindlicher als die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit)."

Date

6. 4.2008 19:04:22

Object

H-Index

Source

Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 61(2008) H.1, S.124-125

0.0470791 = sum of:
  0.025663853 = product of:
    0.10265541 = sum of:
      0.10265541 = weight(_text_:authors in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10265541 = score(doc=2751,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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)
  0.021415249 = product of:
    0.042830497 = sum of:
      0.042830497 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042830497 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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

0.0470791 = sum of:
  0.025663853 = product of:
    0.10265541 = sum of:
      0.10265541 = weight(_text_:authors in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10265541 = score(doc=918,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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)
  0.021415249 = product of:
    0.042830497 = sum of:
      0.042830497 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042830497 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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

0.046323456 = sum of:
  0.021171598 = product of:
    0.08468639 = sum of:
      0.08468639 = weight(_text_:authors in 2858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08468639 = score(doc=2858,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 2858, 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=2858)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.025151858 = product of:
    0.050303716 = sum of:
      0.050303716 = weight(_text_:h in 2858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050303716 = score(doc=2858,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = queryNorm
          0.38429362 = fieldWeight in 2858, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2858)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

J.E. Hirsch (2005) introduced the h-index to quantify an individual's scientific research output by the largest number h of a scientist's papers, that received at least h citations. This so-called Hirsch index can be easily modified to take multiple coauthorship into account by counting the papers fractionally according to (the inverse of) the number of authors. I have worked out 26 empirical cases of physicists to illustrate the effect of this modification. Although the correlation between the original and the modified Hirsch index is relatively strong, the arrangement of the datasets is significantly different depending on whether they are put into order according to the values of either the original or the modified index.

Object

h-Index

0.046156056 = sum of:
  0.021171598 = product of:
    0.08468639 = sum of:
      0.08468639 = weight(_text_:authors in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08468639 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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)
  0.024984457 = product of:
    0.049968913 = sum of:
      0.049968913 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049968913 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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

0.045967463 = sum of:
  0.033475235 = product of:
    0.13390094 = sum of:
      0.13390094 = weight(_text_:authors in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13390094 = score(doc=2597,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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)
  0.012492228 = product of:
    0.024984457 = sum of:
      0.024984457 = weight(_text_:22 in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024984457 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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

0.044551037 = sum of:
  0.018147085 = product of:
    0.07258834 = sum of:
      0.07258834 = weight(_text_:authors in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07258834 = score(doc=2004,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 2004, 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=2004)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.026403952 = product of:
    0.052807905 = sum of:
      0.052807905 = weight(_text_:h in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052807905 = score(doc=2004,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = queryNorm
          0.40342426 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article studies the h-index (Hirsch index) and the g-index of authors, in case one counts authorship of the cited articles in a fractional way. There are two ways to do this: One counts the citations to these papers in a fractional way or one counts the ranks of the papers in a fractional way as credit for an author. In both cases, we define the fractional h- and g-indexes, and we present inequalities (both upper and lower bounds) between these fractional h- and g-indexes and their corresponding unweighted values (also involving, of course, the coauthorship distribution). Wherever applicable, examples and counterexamples are provided. In a concrete example (the publication citation list of the present author), we make explicit calculations of these fractional h- and g-indexes and show that they are not very different from the unweighted ones.

Object

h-index

0.0439109 = sum of:
  0.029634064 = product of:
    0.118536256 = sum of:
      0.118536256 = weight(_text_:authors in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.118536256 = score(doc=4633,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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)
  0.014276832 = product of:
    0.028553665 = sum of:
      0.028553665 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028553665 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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