Search (412 results, page 1 of 21)

0.083452046 = sum of:
  0.047776405 = product of:
    0.19110562 = sum of:
      0.19110562 = weight(_text_:authors in 2849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19110562 = score(doc=2849,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.80589205 = fieldWeight in 2849, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2849)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.03567564 = product of:
    0.07135128 = sum of:
      0.07135128 = weight(_text_:t in 2849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07135128 = score(doc=2849,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20491594 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.34819782 = fieldWeight in 2849, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2849)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Scoring rules (or score-based rankings or summation-based rankings) form a family of bibliometric rankings of authors such that authors are ranked according to the sum over all their publications of some partial scores. Many of these rankings are widely used (e.g., number of publications, weighted or not by the impact factor, by the number of authors, or by the number of citations). We present an axiomatic analysis of the family of all scoring rules and of some particular cases within this family.

0.06881286 = product of:
  0.13762572 = sum of:
    0.13762572 = sum of:
      0.0882927 = weight(_text_:t in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0882927 = score(doc=3837,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20491594 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.4308728 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
      0.04933303 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04933303 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18215442 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3837, 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=3837)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article we further develop the theory for a stochastic model for the citation process in the presence of obsolescence to predict the future citation pattern of individual papers in a collection. More precisely, we investigate the conditional distribution-and its mean- of the number of citations to a paper after time t, given the number of citations it has received up to time t. In an important parametric case it is shown that the expected number of future citations is a linear function of the current number, this being interpretable as an example of a success-breeds-success phenomenon.

Date

29. 3.2003 19:22:48

0.06502815 = sum of:
  0.04388543 = product of:
    0.17554171 = sum of:
      0.17554171 = weight(_text_:authors in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17554171 = score(doc=853,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = 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)
  0.021142727 = product of:
    0.042285454 = sum of:
      0.042285454 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042285454 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18215442 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = 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

0.063865945 = product of:
  0.12773189 = sum of:
    0.12773189 = sum of:
      0.07135128 = weight(_text_:t in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07135128 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20491594 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.34819782 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
      0.056380603 = weight(_text_:22 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056380603 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18215442 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

0.063865945 = product of:
  0.12773189 = sum of:
    0.12773189 = sum of:
      0.07135128 = weight(_text_:t in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07135128 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20491594 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.34819782 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.056380603 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056380603 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18215442 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, 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=77)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

0.059847716 = sum of:
  0.042228777 = product of:
    0.16891511 = sum of:
      0.16891511 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16891511 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = 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)
  0.01761894 = product of:
    0.03523788 = sum of:
      0.03523788 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03523788 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18215442 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = 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

0.054226656 = sum of:
  0.029560141 = product of:
    0.118240565 = sum of:
      0.118240565 = weight(_text_:authors in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.118240565 = score(doc=3030,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = 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)
  0.024666514 = product of:
    0.04933303 = sum of:
      0.04933303 = weight(_text_:22 in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04933303 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18215442 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = 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

0.05217441 = sum of:
  0.031031687 = product of:
    0.12412675 = sum of:
      0.12412675 = weight(_text_:authors in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12412675 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = 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)
  0.021142727 = product of:
    0.042285454 = sum of:
      0.042285454 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042285454 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18215442 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = 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

0.05215753 = sum of:
  0.029860254 = product of:
    0.11944102 = sum of:
      0.11944102 = weight(_text_:authors in 4370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11944102 = score(doc=4370,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = 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)
  0.022297276 = product of:
    0.044594552 = sum of:
      0.044594552 = weight(_text_:t in 4370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044594552 = score(doc=4370,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20491594 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.21762364 = fieldWeight in 4370, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, 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.

0.05215753 = sum of:
  0.029860254 = product of:
    0.11944102 = sum of:
      0.11944102 = weight(_text_:authors in 3798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11944102 = score(doc=3798,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 3798, 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=3798)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.022297276 = product of:
    0.044594552 = sum of:
      0.044594552 = weight(_text_:t in 3798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044594552 = score(doc=3798,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20491594 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.21762364 = fieldWeight in 3798, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3798)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

During the past few decades, the rate of publication retractions has increased dramatically in academia. In this study, we investigate retractions from a quantitative perspective, aiming to answer two fundamental questions. One, how do retractions influence the scholarly impact of retracted papers, authors, and institutions? Two, does this influence propagate to the wider academic community through scholarly associations? Specifically, we analyzed a set of retracted articles indexed in Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WoS), and ran multiple experiments to compare changes in scholarly impact against a control set of nonretracted articles, authors, and institutions. We further applied the Granger Causality test to investigate whether different scientific topics are dynamically affected by retracted papers occurring within those topics. Our results show two key findings: first, the scholarly impact of retracted papers and authors significantly decreases after retraction, and the most severe impact decrease correlates with retractions based on proven, purposeful scientific misconduct; second, this retraction penalty does not seem to spread through the broader scholarly social graph, but instead has a limited and localized effect. Our findings may provide useful insights for scholars or science committees to evaluate the scholarly value of papers, authors, or institutions related to retractions.

0.05211836 = sum of:
  0.020902177 = product of:
    0.08360871 = sum of:
      0.08360871 = weight(_text_:authors in 165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08360871 = score(doc=165,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 165, 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=165)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.031216186 = product of:
    0.06243237 = sum of:
      0.06243237 = weight(_text_:t in 165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06243237 = score(doc=165,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20491594 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.30467308 = fieldWeight in 165, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=165)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The use of citation counts to assess the impact of research articles is well established. However, the citation impact of an article can only be measured several years after it has been published. As research articles are increasingly accessed through the Web, the number of times an article is downloaded can be instantly recorded and counted. One would expect the number of times an article is read to be related both to the number of times it is cited and to how old the article is. The authors analyze how short-term Web usage impact predicts medium-term citation impact. The physics e-print archive-arXiv.org-is used to test this.

0.05211836 = sum of:
  0.020902177 = product of:
    0.08360871 = sum of:
      0.08360871 = weight(_text_:authors in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08360871 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.031216186 = product of:
    0.06243237 = sum of:
      0.06243237 = weight(_text_:t in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06243237 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20491594 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.30467308 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Much informetric research is based on the analysis of the citations that authors make to the publications of other scholars and researchers, whose work they have used in their own articles and books. If such measures are to be useful for understanding scientific recognition and the ways in which scientific results build on earlier work, then an understanding of the motivations of the people doing the citing can be helpful in evaluating the validity of the research based on the citation analysis.

0.052093998 = sum of:
  0.025337266 = product of:
    0.10134906 = sum of:
      0.10134906 = weight(_text_:authors in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10134906 = score(doc=1202,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 1202, 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=1202)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.026756732 = product of:
    0.053513464 = sum of:
      0.053513464 = weight(_text_:t in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053513464 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20491594 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bioinformatics is a fast-growing field based on the optimal use of "big data" gathered in genomic, proteomics, and functional genomics research. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive and in-depth bibliometric analysis of the field of bioinformatics by extracting citation data from PubMed Central full-text. Citation data for the period 2000 to 2011, comprising 20,869 papers with 546,245 citations, was used to evaluate the productivity and influence of this emerging field. Four measures were used to identify productivity; most productive authors, most productive countries, most productive organizations, and most popular subject terms. Research impact was analyzed based on the measures of most cited papers, most cited authors, emerging stars, and leading organizations. Results show the overall trends between the periods 2000 to 2003 and 2004 to 2007 were dissimilar, while trends between the periods 2004 to 2007 and 2008 to 2011 were similar. In addition, the field of bioinformatics has undergone a significant shift, co-evolving with other biomedical disciplines.

0.050776683 = sum of:
  0.025859741 = product of:
    0.103438966 = sum of:
      0.103438966 = weight(_text_:authors in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.103438966 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = 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)
  0.024916941 = product of:
    0.049833883 = sum of:
      0.049833883 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049833883 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18215442 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = 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

0.050776683 = sum of:
  0.025859741 = product of:
    0.103438966 = sum of:
      0.103438966 = weight(_text_:authors in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.103438966 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = 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)
  0.024916941 = product of:
    0.049833883 = sum of:
      0.049833883 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049833883 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18215442 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = 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

0.04789946 = product of:
  0.09579892 = sum of:
    0.09579892 = sum of:
      0.053513464 = weight(_text_:t in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053513464 = score(doc=2695,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20491594 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 2695, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2695)
      0.042285454 = weight(_text_:22 in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042285454 = score(doc=2695,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18215442 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2695, 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=2695)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

23. 2.2009 18:22:28

0.04789946 = product of:
  0.09579892 = sum of:
    0.09579892 = sum of:
      0.053513464 = weight(_text_:t in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053513464 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20491594 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.042285454 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042285454 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18215442 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2012 19:35:26

Footnote

Besteht aus 4 Teilen: Teil 1: Eden, D., A. Arndt, A. Hoffer, T. Raschke u. P. Schön: Die Nachrichten für Dokumentation in den Jahren 1950 bis 1962 (S.159-163). Teil 2: Brose, M., E. durst, D. Nitzsche, D. Veckenstedt u. R. Wein: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1963-1975 (S.164-170). Teil 3: Bösel, J., G. Ebert, P. Garz,, M. Iwanow u. B. Russ: Methoden und Ergebnisse einer statistischen Auswertung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1976 bis 1988 (S.171-174). Teil 4: Engelage, H., S. Jansen, R. Mertins, K. Redel u. S. Ring: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) / "Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis" (IWP) 1989-2011 (S.164-170).

0.04789946 = product of:
  0.09579892 = sum of:
    0.09579892 = sum of:
      0.053513464 = weight(_text_:t in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053513464 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20491594 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
      0.042285454 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042285454 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18215442 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2014 17:11:29

0.04789946 = product of:
  0.09579892 = sum of:
    0.09579892 = sum of:
      0.053513464 = weight(_text_:t in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053513464 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20491594 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
      0.042285454 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042285454 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18215442 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2132, 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=2132)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

8. 7.2015 22:00:42

0.046479993 = sum of:
  0.025337266 = product of:
    0.10134906 = sum of:
      0.10134906 = weight(_text_:authors in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10134906 = score(doc=2751,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = 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)
  0.021142727 = product of:
    0.042285454 = sum of:
      0.042285454 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042285454 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18215442 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = 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