Search (257 results, page 1 of 13)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.11 
    0.10981321 = product of:
  0.21962643 = sum of:
    0.15065368 = weight(_text_:theories in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15065368 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.6035241 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
    0.025192786 = weight(_text_:der in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025192786 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10207828 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.2467987 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
    0.043779977 = product of:
      0.08755995 = sum of:
        0.08755995 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08755995 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16002598 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045697823 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  2. Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013) 0.11 
    0.10627447 = product of:
  0.3188234 = sum of:
    0.29032102 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29032102 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38742664 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.028502384 = weight(_text_:der in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028502384 = score(doc=2188,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10207828 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.27922085 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Wissenschaftliche Karrieren und Publikationen benötigen Reputation und möglichst viel Beachtung. Literatur, die diese Aufmerksamkeit findet, wird - so die gängige Annahme - häufig zitiert. Ausgehend von dieser Überlegung wurden Verfahren der Zitationsmessung entwickelt, die Auskunft über die Relevanz oder (wie im- und explizit oft auch postuliert wird) gar die Qualität einer Publikation oder eines Wissenschaftlers geben sollen.
    Content
    Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
  3. Ohly, K.P.: Bibliometrie in der Postmoderne (2006) 0.05 
    0.051692113 = product of:
  0.15507634 = sum of:
    0.10494333 = weight(_text_:einzelne in 5865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10494333 = score(doc=5865,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26896578 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.885746 = idf(docFreq=333, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.39017352 = fieldWeight in 5865, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.885746 = idf(docFreq=333, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5865)
    0.050133012 = weight(_text_:der in 5865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050133012 = score(doc=5865,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.10207828 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.4911232 = fieldWeight in 5865, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5865)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Die Messung wissenschaftlicher Leistung hat gerade in Zeiten knapper öffentlicher Budgets Konjunktur. Wissenschaftliche Indikatoren zeichnen sich dadurch aus, dass nicht mehr einzelne Experten ihre subjektive Einschätzung über den Zustand der Wissenschaften abgeben, sondern die Summe dessen, was die Wissenschaft selbst produziert hat, so analysiert wird, dass ein objektives' Bild der Wissenschaft entsteht'. Zudem könnte mit der öffentlichen Diskussion etwa von Rankinglisten eine demokratische Steuerung des Wissenschaftsbetriebs erreicht zu werden'. Andererseits kann seriöse Forschung, die langfristige Forschungsziele in unspektakulären Schritten stützt, die unkonventionell Wissenschaft betreibt oder die Methodenkritik ernst nimmt, hierdurch benachteiligt werden. In unserer wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation wird es zunehmend schwerer, Wissenschaftsinhalte, Wissenschaftseinheiten und Wissenschaftsauswirkungen zu definieren oder gar ursächlich zuzuschreiben. Eine Bibliometrie, die sich als eine Wissenschaft von der Messbarkeit und Aussagekraft der wissenschaftlichen Prozesse und Produkte versteht, wird genau dort wieder anzusetzen haben, wo sie einst begonnen hat: nämlich bei der Hinterfragung dessen, wie Wissenschaftlichkeit und Forschungsfortschritt sich objektiv ausdrückt und wie dies 'unobstrusiv' ermittelt und sozialverträglich kommuniziert werden kann.
    Series
    Fortschritte in der Wissensorganisation; Bd.9
    Source
    Wissensorganisation und Verantwortung: Gesellschaftliche, ökonomische und technische Aspekte. Proceedings der 9. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Duisburg, 5.-7. November 2004. Hrsg. von H.P. Ohly u.a
  4. Theories of citation? (1998) 0.05 
    0.049713176 = product of:
  0.29827905 = sum of:
    0.29827905 = weight(_text_:theories in 3836) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29827905 = score(doc=3836,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        1.1949167 = fieldWeight in 3836, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3836)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'
  5. Sieben Fragen zu Bibliometrie : Antworten von Ilka Agricola, Friedrich Götze, Martin Grötschel, Klaus Hulek, Peter Michor, Gabriele Nebe, Hans Jürgen Prömel, Jens Vygen, Gerhard Woeginger (2017) 0.05 
    0.04962323 = product of:
  0.14886968 = sum of:
    0.123676896 = weight(_text_:einzelne in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.123676896 = score(doc=4216,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.26896578 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.885746 = idf(docFreq=333, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.4598239 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.885746 = idf(docFreq=333, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
    0.025192786 = weight(_text_:der in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025192786 = score(doc=4216,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10207828 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.2467987 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Wissenschaftliche Institutionen und einzelne WissenschaftlerInnen werden zunehmend nach bibliometrischen Daten beurteilt. Jeder Mathematiker hat Vorbehalte gegenüber dieser Praxis. Über diese beiden Dinge waren sich alle TeilnemerInnen und Wortmeldungen des Panels zur Bibliometrie auf der DMV-Jahrestagung in Salzburg einig. Für einzelne WissenschaftlerInnen hat die IMU bereits 2014 (tinyurl.com/ycd7wvh7) die Vorbehalte gegenüber rein bibliometrischen Beurteilungen klar formuliert. Universitätsleitungen, Politik und andere bis hin zur öffentlichen Diskussion verlassen sich aber teilweise aif diese Art der Bewertung. Konkret kann das so aussehen: Zur Beurteilung von Departements zählt eine Universität Publikationen und gewichtet sie nach ihrer Güte. Die Güte entnimmt man einer Einteilung von Fachzeitschriften etwa in A, B und C. Liegt eine solche Einteilung nicht vor, sind alle Journale des Faches mit 1 gewichtet, d.h. 'junk'. Die Diskrepanz zwischen unserer Einschätzung und der allgemeinen Wirkmächtigkeit von Biblimetrie wirft für die DMV als Fachgegsellschaft die Frage auf, wie sie Einfluss nehmen kann und soll. Die 'Mitteilungen' versuchen an dieser Stelle zunächst, ein möglichst breites Meinungsbild zu sammeln. Wir haben sieben Fragen an eine Reihe von Kolleginnen und Kollegen gestellt, die am Panel teilgenmmen haben oder aus anderen Gründen mit dem Thema besfasst sind.
    Source
    Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. 2017, H.4, S.215-224
  6. Camacho-Miñano, M.-del-Mar; Núñez-Nickel, M.: ¬The multilayered nature of reference selection (2009) 0.05 
    0.04880272 = product of:
  0.14640816 = sum of:
    0.12783389 = weight(_text_:theories in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12783389 = score(doc=2751,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.5121072 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
    0.018574271 = product of:
      0.037148543 = sum of:
        0.037148543 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037148543 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16002598 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045697823 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
  7. Garfield, E.: Random thoughts on citationology : Its theory and practice (1998) 0.04 
    0.040174317 = product of:
  0.24104589 = sum of:
    0.24104589 = weight(_text_:theories in 5128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24104589 = score(doc=5128,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.9656386 = fieldWeight in 5128, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5128)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Theories of citation are as elusive as theories of information science, which have been debated for decade. Gives an overview of some of these theories, and as a basis for discussion offers the term citationology as the theory and practice of citation, including its derivative disciplines citation analysis and bibliometrics
    Footnote
    Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'
  8. Ridenour, L.: Boundary objects : measuring gaps and overlap between research areas (2016) 0.04 
    0.036322158 = product of:
  0.10896647 = sum of:
    0.0903922 = weight(_text_:theories in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0903922 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.36211446 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
    0.018574271 = product of:
      0.037148543 = sum of:
        0.037148543 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037148543 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16002598 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045697823 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    The aim of this paper is to develop methodology to determine conceptual overlap between research areas. It investigates patterns of terminology usage in scientific abstracts as boundary objects between research specialties. Research specialties were determined by high-level classifications assigned by Thomson Reuters in their Essential Science Indicators file, which provided a strictly hierarchical classification of journals into 22 categories. Results from the query "network theory" were downloaded from the Web of Science. From this file, two top-level groups, economics and social sciences, were selected and topically analyzed to provide a baseline of similarity on which to run an informetric analysis. The Places & Spaces Map of Science (Klavans and Boyack 2007) was used to determine the proximity of disciplines to one another in order to select the two disciplines use in the analysis. Groups analyzed share common theories and goals; however, groups used different language to describe their research. It was found that 61% of term words were shared between the two groups.
  9. Egghe, L.: Mathematical theories of citation (1998) 0.03 
    0.03479198 = product of:
  0.20875187 = sum of:
    0.20875187 = weight(_text_:theories in 5125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20875187 = score(doc=5125,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.8362676 = fieldWeight in 5125, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5125)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Focuses on possible mathematical theories of citation and on the intrinsic problems related to it. Sheds light on aspects of mathematical complexity as encountered in, for example, fractal theory and Mandelbrot's law. Also discusses dynamical aspects of citation theory as reflected in evolutions of journal rankings, centres of gravity or of the set of source journals. Makes some comments in this connection on growth and obsolescence
    Footnote
    Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'
  10. Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015) 0.03 
    0.03240561 = product of:
  0.09721683 = sum of:
    0.07532684 = weight(_text_:theories in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07532684 = score(doc=2590,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.30176204 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.021889988 = product of:
      0.043779977 = sum of:
        0.043779977 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043779977 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16002598 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045697823 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
  11. Leydesdorff, L.: Theories of citation? (1999) 0.03 
    0.030442983 = product of:
  0.1826579 = sum of:
    0.1826579 = weight(_text_:theories in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1826579 = score(doc=5130,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.73173416 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Citations support the communication of specialist knowledge by allowing authors and readers to make specific selections in several contexts at the same time. In the interactions between the social network of authors and the network of their reflexive communications, a sub textual code of communication with a distributed character has emerged. Citation analysis reflects on citation practices. Reference lists are aggregated in scientometric analysis using one of the available contexts to reduce the complexity: geometrical representations of dynamic operations are reflected in corresponding theories of citation. The specific contexts represented in the modern citation can be deconstructed from the perspective of the cultural evolution of scientific communication
    Footnote
    Lead paper in a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'
  12. Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication : a Festschrift in honor of Blaise Cronin (2016) 0.03 
    0.030130735 = product of:
  0.1807844 = sum of:
    0.1807844 = weight(_text_:theories in 3801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1807844 = score(doc=3801,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.7242289 = fieldWeight in 3801, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3801)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Scientometrics have become an essential element in the practice and evaluation of science and research, including both the evaluation of individuals and national assessment exercises. This book brings together the theories that guide informetrics and scholarly communication research. It is a much needed compilation by leading scholars in the field that gathers together the theories that guide our understanding of authorship, citing, and impact
    Content
    Frontmatter -- -- Foreword -- -- Prologue -- -- Contents -- -- Introduction -- -- Part I: Critical informetrics -- -- The Incessant Chattering of Texts -- -- Informetrics Needs a Foundation in the Theory of Science -- -- Part II: Citation theories -- -- Referencing as Cooperation or Competition -- -- Semiotics and Citations -- -- Data Citation as a Bibliometric Oxymoron -- -- Part III: Statistical theories -- -- TypeToken Theory and Bibliometrics -- -- From a Success Index to a Success Multiplier -- -- From Matthew to Hirsch: A Success-Breeds-Success Story -- -- Informations Magic Numbers: The Numerology of Information Science -- -- Part IV: Authorship theories -- -- Authors as Persons and Authors as Bundles of Words -- -- The Angle Sum Theory: Exploring the Literature on Acknowledgments in Scholarly Communication -- -- The Flesh of Science: Somatics and Semiotics -- -- Part V: Knowledge organization theories -- -- Informetric Analyses of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOSs) -- -- Information, Meaning, and Intellectual Organization in Networks of Inter-Human Communication -- -- Modeling the Structure and Dynamics of Science Using Books -- -- Part VI: Altmetric theories -- -- Webometrics and Altmetrics: Home Birth vs. Hospital Birth -- -- Scientific Revolution in Scientometrics: The Broadening of Impact from Citation to Societal -- -- Altmetrics as Traces of the Computerization of the Research Process -- -- Interpreting Altmetrics: Viewing Acts on Social Media through the Lens of Citation and Social Theories -- -- Biographical information for the editor and contributors -- -- Index
  13. Fujigaki, Y.: ¬The citation system : citation networks as repeatedly focusing on difference, continuous re-evaluation, and as persistent knowledge accumulation (1998) 0.03 
    0.028407533 = product of:
  0.17044519 = sum of:
    0.17044519 = weight(_text_:theories in 5129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17044519 = score(doc=5129,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.6828096 = fieldWeight in 5129, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5129)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    States that it can be shown that claims of a lack of theories of citation are also indicative of a great need for a theory which links science dynamics and measurement. There is a wide gap between qualitative (science dynamics) and quantitative (measurement) approaches. To link them, proposes the use of the citation system, that potentially bridges a gap between measurement and epistemology, by applying system theory to the publication system
    Footnote
    Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'
  14. Kostoff, R.N.: ¬The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation (1998) 0.03 
    0.028407533 = product of:
  0.17044519 = sum of:
    0.17044519 = weight(_text_:theories in 4129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17044519 = score(doc=4129,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.6828096 = fieldWeight in 4129, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4129)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Leydesdorff, in his 1998 paper 'Theories of citation?', addresses the history of citations and citation analysis, and the transformation of a reference mechanism into a purportedly quantitative measure of research impact/quality. Examines different facets of citations and citation analysis, and discusses the validity of citation analysis as a useful measure of research impact/quality
    Footnote
    Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'
  15. Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006) 0.03 
    0.027256822 = product of:
  0.081770465 = sum of:
    0.05700477 = weight(_text_:der in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05700477 = score(doc=77,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.10207828 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.5584417 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
    0.024765696 = product of:
      0.049531393 = sum of:
        0.049531393 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049531393 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16002598 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045697823 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Die Webometrie ist ein Teilbereich der Informationswissenschaft der zur Zeit auf die Analyse von Linkstrukturen konzentriert ist. Er ist stark von der Zitationsanalyse geprägt, wie der empirische Schwerpunkt auf der Wissenschaftsanalyse zeigt. In diesem Beitrag diskutieren wir die Nutzung linkbasierter Maße in einem breiten informetrischen Kontext und bewerten verschiedene Verfahren, auch im Hinblick auf ihr generelles Potentialfür die Sozialwissenschaften. Dabei wird auch ein allgemeiner Rahmenfür Linkanalysen mit den erforderlichen Arbeitsschritten vorgestellt. Abschließend werden vielversprechende zukünftige Anwendungsfelder der Webometrie benannt, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Analyse von Blogs.
    Date
    4.12.2006 12:12:22
  16. Scharnhorst, A.: Citation - networks, science landscapes and evolutionary strategies (1998) 0.02 
    0.024856588 = product of:
  0.14913952 = sum of:
    0.14913952 = weight(_text_:theories in 5126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14913952 = score(doc=5126,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.59745836 = fieldWeight in 5126, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5126)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    The construction of virtual science landscapes based on citation networks and the strategic use of the information therein shed new light on the issues of the evolution of the science system and possibilities for control. Leydesdorff's approach to citation theory described in his 1998 article (see this issue of LISA) takes into account the dual layered character of communication networks and the second order nature of the science system. This perspective may help to sharpen the awareness of scientists and science policy makers for possible feedback loops within actions and activities in the science system, and probably nonlinear phenomena resulting therefrom. Sketches an additional link to geometrically oriented evolutionary theories and uses a specific landscape concept as a framework for some comments
    Footnote
    Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?
  17. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.02 
    0.024358198 = product of:
  0.073074594 = sum of:
    0.054500327 = weight(_text_:der in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054500327 = score(doc=590,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.10207828 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.5339072 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
    0.018574271 = product of:
      0.037148543 = sum of:
        0.037148543 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037148543 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16002598 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045697823 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
    Source
    Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 61(2008) H.1, S.124-125
  18. Jovanovic, M.: ¬Eine kleine Frühgeschichte der Bibliometrie (2012) 0.02 
    0.023645502 = product of:
  0.0709365 = sum of:
    0.05236223 = weight(_text_:der in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05236223 = score(doc=326,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.10207828 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.5129615 = fieldWeight in 326, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=326)
    0.018574271 = product of:
      0.037148543 = sum of:
        0.037148543 = weight(_text_:22 in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037148543 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16002598 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045697823 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 326, 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=326)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    In der Bibliometrie werden meist zwei Größen vermessen: die Anzahl von Publikationen und Zitationen. Publiziert und zitiert haben Menschen bereits sehr früh in der Geschichte. Schon in der Antike sind bei überlieferten Werken Zitationen zu finden. Der englische Begriff "Bibliometrics" selbst wurde aber erst 1969 definiert. In dem folgenden Artikel wird eine kleine Frühgeschichte der Bibliometrie, einer Unterdisziplin der Informationswissenschaft, bis zu diesem wichtigen Jahr anhand von beispielhaften Studien und Arbeiten dargestellt. Es wird auf die Anfänge von Publikationen und Zitationen und den fachlichen Rahmen der Bibliometrie eingegangen. Der Ursprung der Bibliometriegeschichte selbst wird von unterschiedlichen Autoren unterschiedlich früh angesetzt. Die verschiedenen Ansätze werden vorgestellt und diskutiert. Der Artikel schließt mit einer Beschreibung der wachsenden Bedeutung dieses Fachs im heutigen Informationszeitalter.
    Date
    22. 7.2012 19:23:32
  19. Schlögl, C.: Internationale Sichtbarkeit der europäischen und insbesondere der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft (2013) 0.02 
    0.020367645 = product of:
  0.061102934 = sum of:
    0.03943295 = weight(_text_:der in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03943295 = score(doc=900,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10207828 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.38630107 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
    0.021669984 = product of:
      0.043339968 = sum of:
        0.043339968 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043339968 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16002598 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045697823 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 900, 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=900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    In diesem Beitrag wird eine Publikationsanalyse von Beiträgen in von im Web of Science (WoS) indexierten bibliotheks- und informationswissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften vorgestellt. Die Ergebnisse dieser Analyse bestätigen die anglo-amerikanische Dominanz in der facheinschlägigen Literatur, die bei den primär informationswissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften sogar noch deutlicher ausfällt. Die skandinavischen Länder und der Bereich der Szientometrie stellen gewisse Ausnahmen dar. Die internationale Sichtbarkeit Deutschlands und Österreichs ist hingegen "ausbaufähig".
    Date
    22. 3.2013 14:04:09
  20. Rivas, A.L.; Deshler, J.D.; Quimby, F.W.; Mohammend, H.O.; Wilson, D.J.; Gonzales, R.N.; Lein, D.H.; Bruso, P.: Interdisciplinary question generation : synthesis and validity analysis of the 1993-1997 bovine mastitis related literature (1998) 0.02 
    0.020087158 = product of:
  0.120522946 = sum of:
    0.120522946 = weight(_text_:theories in 5124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120522946 = score(doc=5124,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.4828193 = fieldWeight in 5124, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5124)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Describes research in which interdisciplinary synthesis and validity analysis (ISVA), a structured learning approach which integrates learning and communication theories, meta analytic evaluation methods, and literature management related technologies, was applied in the context of the 1993-1997 bovine mastitis research literature. The study investigated whether ISVA could facilitate the analysis and synthesis of interdisciplinary knowledge claims and generate projects or research questions

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 144
  • d 111
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 236
  • el 13
  • m 9
  • s 5
  • r 3
  • x 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications