Search (499 results, page 1 of 25)

0.11732777 = sum of:
  0.02687417 = product of:
    0.10749668 = sum of:
      0.10749668 = weight(_text_:authors in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10749668 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.45050737 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0904536 = sum of:
    0.062087722 = weight(_text_:r in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062087722 = score(doc=5171,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05234091 = queryNorm
        0.358346 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.028365882 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028365882 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05234091 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, 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=5171)

Abstract

Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.

Date

9. 7.2006 10:22:35

0.07082876 = sum of:
  0.026020804 = product of:
    0.10408322 = sum of:
      0.10408322 = weight(_text_:authors in 2119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10408322 = score(doc=2119,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 2119, 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=2119)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.044807956 = product of:
    0.08961591 = sum of:
      0.08961591 = weight(_text_:r in 2119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08961591 = score(doc=2119,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.5172279 = fieldWeight in 2119, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2119)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In their article "Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient," Ahlgren, Jarneving, and Rousseau fault traditional author cocitation analysis (ACA) for using Pearson's r as a measure of similarity between authors because it fails two tests of stability of measurement. The instabilities arise when rs are recalculated after a first coherent group of authors has been augmented by a second coherent group with whom the first has little or no cocitation. However, AJ&R neither cluster nor map their data to demonstrate how fluctuations in rs will mislead the analyst, and the problem they pose is remote from both theory and practice in traditional ACA. By entering their own rs into multidimensional scaling and clustering routines, I show that, despite r's fluctuations, clusters based an it are much the same for the combined groups as for the separate groups. The combined groups when mapped appear as polarized clumps of points in two-dimensional space, confirming that differences between the groups have become much more important than differences within the groups-an accurate portrayal of what has happened to the data. Moreover, r produces clusters and maps very like those based an other coefficients that AJ&R mention as possible replacements, such as a cosine similarity measure or a chi square dissimilarity measure. Thus, r performs well enough for the purposes of ACA. Accordingly, I argue that qualitative information revealing why authors are cocited is more important than the cautions proposed in the AJ&R critique. I include notes an topics such as handling the diagonal in author cocitation matrices, lognormalizing data, and testing r for significance.

0.0707098 = sum of:
  0.016996717 = product of:
    0.06798687 = sum of:
      0.06798687 = weight(_text_:authors in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06798687 = score(doc=4051,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.28492588 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.053713087 = sum of:
    0.025347205 = weight(_text_:r in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025347205 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05234091 = queryNorm
        0.14629413 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.028365882 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028365882 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05234091 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, 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=4051)

Abstract

Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.069177754 = product of:
  0.13835551 = sum of:
    0.13835551 = sum of:
      0.08871522 = weight(_text_:r in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08871522 = score(doc=3689,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.51202947 = fieldWeight in 3689, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3689)
      0.049640294 = weight(_text_:22 in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049640294 = score(doc=3689,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3689, 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=3689)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Context analysis is a new method for appraising a body of publications. the process consists of creating a database of attributes assigned to each paper by the reviewer and then looking for interesting relationships in the data. Assigning the attributes requires an understanding of the subject matter of the papers. Presents findings about one particular research field, Management of R&D at the Section Level. The findings support the view that this body of academic publications does not meet the needs of practitioner R&D managers. Discusses practical aspects of how to apply the method in other fields

Date

22. 5.1999 19:18:46

0.065668054 = sum of:
  0.04982605 = product of:
    0.1993042 = sum of:
      0.1993042 = weight(_text_:authors in 5106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1993042 = score(doc=5106,freq=22.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.8352631 = fieldWeight in 5106, product of:
            4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
              22.0 = termFreq=22.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5106)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.015842004 = product of:
    0.031684007 = sum of:
      0.031684007 = weight(_text_:r in 5106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031684007 = score(doc=5106,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 5106, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5106)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors assess the number of coauthors in articles published by authors affiliated with domestic (Croatian) and foreign (non-Croatian) institutions in the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) and investigate the increase in the number of coauthors after inclusion of the journal in the Current Contents (CC) bibliographic database (Thomson ISI, Philadelphia, PA) in 1999. They analyzed 761 articles published in the CMJ between 1992 and 2003, and determined the average number of authors per article, authors' country of origin, and the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of the authors' country. The average number of authors in articles written by authors affiliated with domestic institutions was significantly larger in almost all journal sections. The increase in the number of domestic coauthors was more pronounced after inclusion of the journal in the CC database. The number of domestic coauthors published in the Clinical section increased from 4.2 ± 2.1 to 5.1 ± 2.3. There was also an increase in coauthors published in the Public Health section-from 3.1 ± 1.9 to 4.1 ± 1.9. The results of the study imply that authors' adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria depends on the size of the scientific community and that adherence is poor among domestic authors publishing in a small, national medical journal outside of mainstream science. An increased number of coauthors in articles published by authors affiliated with domestic institutions does not necessarily imply authorship misconduct but it suggests involvement of an appreciable number of authors who made few or no substantial contributions to the research. This discounts two main purposes of scientific authorship: to confer credit and denote responsibility for performed research.

0.065433174 = sum of:
  0.044158764 = product of:
    0.17663506 = sum of:
      0.17663506 = weight(_text_:authors in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17663506 = score(doc=853,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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)
  0.021274412 = product of:
    0.042548824 = sum of:
      0.042548824 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042548824 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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

0.06110982 = sum of:
  0.029744254 = product of:
    0.11897702 = sum of:
      0.11897702 = weight(_text_:authors in 6501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11897702 = score(doc=6501,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 6501, 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=6501)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.031365566 = product of:
    0.06273113 = sum of:
      0.06273113 = weight(_text_:r in 6501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06273113 = score(doc=6501,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.3620595 = fieldWeight in 6501, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6501)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Citation is a worldwide phenomenon. It needs to be considered in the international context. This study examines 4 common modalities (physical accessibility, cognitive accessibility, perceived quality, and perceived importance) underlying the complex citation practice by translation analysis. In an analysis of the Chinese literature in library and information science, it was found that there is a very strong correlation between languages cited and languages translated (r=0.978). The overall national citation pattern of foreign publications is highly correlated with its translation pattern (r=0.897). There is approximately 57% overlap between the group of the 60 most heavily cited authors and the group of the 60 most frequently translated authors. Highly cited publications are more likely to be translated (54.5 vs. 13.8%)

0.060220473 = sum of:
  0.042491794 = product of:
    0.16996717 = sum of:
      0.16996717 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16996717 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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)
  0.017728677 = product of:
    0.035457354 = sum of:
      0.035457354 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035457354 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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

0.05860793 = sum of:
  0.036429126 = product of:
    0.1457165 = sum of:
      0.1457165 = weight(_text_:authors in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1457165 = score(doc=2765,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.61068267 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.022178805 = product of:
    0.04435761 = sum of:
      0.04435761 = weight(_text_:r in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04435761 = score(doc=2765,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.25601473 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Beginning with a short review of Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals, we focus on PLOS ONE and more specifically the contributions of Chinese authors to this journal. It is shown that their contribution is growing exponentially. In 2013 almost one fifth of all publications in this journal had at least one Chinese author. The average number of citations per publication is approximately the same for articles with a Chinese author and for articles without any Chinese coauthor. Using the odds-ratio, we could not find arguments that Chinese authors in PLOS ONE excessively cite other Chinese contributions.

0.0545644 = sum of:
  0.029744254 = product of:
    0.11897702 = sum of:
      0.11897702 = weight(_text_:authors in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11897702 = score(doc=3030,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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)
  0.024820147 = product of:
    0.049640294 = sum of:
      0.049640294 = weight(_text_:22 in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049640294 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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

0.053713087 = product of:
  0.107426174 = sum of:
    0.107426174 = sum of:
      0.05069441 = weight(_text_:r in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05069441 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
      0.056731764 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056731764 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, 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=1431)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2014 17:05:18

0.052499376 = sum of:
  0.031224964 = product of:
    0.12489986 = sum of:
      0.12489986 = weight(_text_:authors in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12489986 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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)
  0.021274412 = product of:
    0.042548824 = sum of:
      0.042548824 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042548824 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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

0.051092938 = sum of:
  0.026020804 = product of:
    0.10408322 = sum of:
      0.10408322 = weight(_text_:authors in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10408322 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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)
  0.025072135 = product of:
    0.05014427 = sum of:
      0.05014427 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05014427 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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

0.051092938 = sum of:
  0.026020804 = product of:
    0.10408322 = sum of:
      0.10408322 = weight(_text_:authors in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10408322 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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)
  0.025072135 = product of:
    0.05014427 = sum of:
      0.05014427 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05014427 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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

0.05023537 = sum of:
  0.031224964 = product of:
    0.12489986 = sum of:
      0.12489986 = weight(_text_:authors in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12489986 = score(doc=4384,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 4384, 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=4384)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.019010404 = product of:
    0.03802081 = sum of:
      0.03802081 = weight(_text_:r in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03802081 = score(doc=4384,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

One aim of science evaluation studies is to determine quantitatively the contribution of different players (authors, departments, countries) to the whole system. This information is then used to study the evolution of the system, for instance to gauge the results of special national or international programs. Taking articles as our basic data, we want to determine the exact relative contribution of each coauthor or each country. These numbers are brought together to obtain country scores, or department scores, etc. It turns out, as we will show in this article, that different scoring methods can yield totally different rankings. Conseqeuntly, a ranking between countries, universities, research groups or authors, based on one particular accrediting methods does not contain an absolute truth about their relative importance

0.05023537 = sum of:
  0.031224964 = product of:
    0.12489986 = sum of:
      0.12489986 = weight(_text_:authors in 5205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12489986 = score(doc=5205,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 5205, 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=5205)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.019010404 = product of:
    0.03802081 = sum of:
      0.03802081 = weight(_text_:r in 5205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03802081 = score(doc=5205,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 5205, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5205)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Fractional counting of authors of multi-authored papers has been shown to lead to a breakdown of Lotka's Law despite its robust character under most circumstances. Kretschmer and Rousseau use the normal count method of full credit for each author on two five-year bibliographies from each of 13 Dutch physics institutes where high co-authorship is a common occurrence. Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were preformed to see if the Lotka distribution fit the data. All bibliographies up to 40 authors fit acceptably; no bibliography with a paper with over 100 authors fits the distribution. The underlying traditional "success breeds success" mechanism assumes new items on a one by one basis, but Egghe's generalized model would still account for the process. It seems unlikely that Lotka's Law will hold in a high co-authorship environment.

0.049434714 = sum of:
  0.033592712 = product of:
    0.13437085 = sum of:
      0.13437085 = weight(_text_:authors in 1738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13437085 = score(doc=1738,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.5631342 = fieldWeight in 1738, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1738)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.015842004 = product of:
    0.031684007 = sum of:
      0.031684007 = weight(_text_:r in 1738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031684007 = score(doc=1738,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 1738, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1738)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The present study aims to investigate how textual features, depth of citation treatment, reasons for citation, and relationships between citers and citees predict author-rated citation importance. Design/methodology/approach - A total of 49 biology and 50 psychology authors assessed the importance, reason for citation, and relationship to the cited author for each cited reference in his or her own recently published empirical article. Participants performed their evaluations on individualized web-based surveys. Findings - The paper finds that certain textual features, such as citation frequency, citation length, and citation location, as well as author-stated reasons for citation predicted ratings of importance, but the strength of the relationship often depended on citation features in the article as a whole. The relationship between objective citation features and author-rated importance also tended to be weaker for self-citations. Research limitations/implications - The study sample included authors of relatively long empirical articles with a minimum of 35 cited references. There were relatively few disciplinary differences, which suggests that citation behavior in psychology may be similar to that in natural science disciplines. Future studies should involve authors from other disciplines employing diverse referencing patterns in articles of varying lengths and types. Originality/value - Findings of the study have enabled a comprehensive, profound level of understanding of citation behaviors of biology and psychology authors. It uncovered a number of unique characteristics in authors' citation evaluations, such as article-level context effects and rule- versus affective-based judgments. The paper suggests possible implications for developing retrieval algorithms based on automatically predicted importance of cited references.

0.04938419 = sum of:
  0.024036987 = product of:
    0.09614795 = sum of:
      0.09614795 = weight(_text_:authors in 1686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09614795 = score(doc=1686,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 1686, 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=1686)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.025347205 = product of:
    0.05069441 = sum of:
      0.05069441 = weight(_text_:r in 1686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05069441 = score(doc=1686,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 1686, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1686)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The fields of informetrics and scientometrics have suffered from the lack of a powerful test to detect the differences between two samples. We show that the Mann-Whitney test is a good test an the publication productivity of journals and of authors. Its main limitation is a lack of Power on small samples that have small differences. This is not the fault of the test, but rather reflects the fact that small, similar samples have little to distinguish between them.

0.048159182 = product of:
  0.096318364 = sum of:
    0.096318364 = sum of:
      0.05376954 = weight(_text_:r in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05376954 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.3103367 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.042548824 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042548824 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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).

0.04676949 = sum of:
  0.025495077 = product of:
    0.101980306 = sum of:
      0.101980306 = weight(_text_:authors in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101980306 = score(doc=2751,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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)
  0.021274412 = product of:
    0.042548824 = sum of:
      0.042548824 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042548824 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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