-
Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986)
0.06
0.064934835 = product of:
0.12986967 = sum of:
0.12986967 = sum of:
0.018725513 = weight(_text_:e in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018725513 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.2540935 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
0.111144155 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.111144155 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Language
- e
- Source
- Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.06
0.064934835 = product of:
0.12986967 = sum of:
0.12986967 = sum of:
0.018725513 = weight(_text_:e in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018725513 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.2540935 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
0.111144155 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.111144155 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 13. 7.2008 19:53:22
- Language
- e
-
Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987)
0.06
0.064934835 = product of:
0.12986967 = sum of:
0.12986967 = sum of:
0.018725513 = weight(_text_:e in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018725513 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.2540935 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
0.111144155 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.111144155 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Language
- e
- Source
- Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
-
Brown, C.: ¬The role of electronic preprints in chemical communication : analysis of citation, usage, and acceptance in the journal literature (2003)
0.06
0.06405108 = sum of:
0.055273492 = product of:
0.22109397 = sum of:
0.22109397 = weight(_text_:editors in 1453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.22109397 = score(doc=1453,freq=6.0), product of:
0.34419647 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.6423482 = fieldWeight in 1453, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1453)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.008777584 = product of:
0.017555168 = sum of:
0.017555168 = weight(_text_:e in 1453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017555168 = score(doc=1453,freq=18.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.23821265 = fieldWeight in 1453, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1453)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This study characterizes the usage and acceptance of electronic preprints (e-prints) in the literature of chemistry. Survey of authors of e-prints appearing in the Chemistry Preprint Server (CPS) at http://preprints. chemweb.com indicates use of the CPS as a convenient vehicle for dissemination of research findings and for receipt of feedback before submitting to a peer-reviewed journal. Reception of CPS e-prints by editors of top chemistry journals is very poor. Only 6% of editors responding allow publication of articles that have previously appeared as e-prints. Concerns focus an the lack of peer review and the uncertain permanence of e-print storage. Consequently, it was not surprising to discover that citation analysis yielded no citations to CPS e-prints in the traditional literature of chemistry. Yet data collected and posted by the CPS indicates that the e-prints are valued, read, and discussed to a notable extent within the chemistry community. Thirty-two percent of the most highly rated, viewed, and discussed e-prints eventually appear in the journal literature, indicating the validity of the work submitted to the CPS. This investigation illustrates the ambivalence with which editors and authors view the CPS, but also gives an early sense of the potential free and rapid information dissemination, coupled with open, uninhibited discussion and evaluation, has to expand, enrich, and vitalize the scholarly discourse of chemical scientists.
- Language
- e
-
Frandsen, T.F.; Nicolaisen, J.: Praise the bridge that carries you over : testing the flattery citation hypothesis (2011)
0.06
0.057667773 = sum of:
0.05415674 = product of:
0.21662696 = sum of:
0.21662696 = weight(_text_:editors in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.21662696 = score(doc=4361,freq=4.0), product of:
0.34419647 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.6293701 = fieldWeight in 4361, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4361)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.0035110335 = product of:
0.007022067 = sum of:
0.007022067 = weight(_text_:e in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007022067 = score(doc=4361,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 4361, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4361)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Flattery citations of editors, potential referees, and so on have been claimed to be a common strategy among academic authors. From a sociology of science perspective as well as from a citation analytical perspective, it is both an interesting claim and a consequential one. The article presents a citation analysis of the editorial board members entering the American Economic Review from 1984 to 2004 using a citation window of 11 years. To test the flattery citation hypothesis further, we have conducted a study applying the difference-in-differences estimator. We analyze the number of times the editors and editorial board members of the American Economic Review were cited in articles published in the journal itself as well as in a pool of documents comprising articles from the Journal of Political Economy and the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The results of the analyses do not support the existence of a flattery citation effect.
- Language
- e
-
Cabanac, G.; Hartley, J.: Issues of work-life balance among JASIST authors and editors (2013)
0.06
0.057667773 = sum of:
0.05415674 = product of:
0.21662696 = sum of:
0.21662696 = weight(_text_:editors in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.21662696 = score(doc=996,freq=4.0), product of:
0.34419647 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.6293701 = fieldWeight in 996, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=996)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.0035110335 = product of:
0.007022067 = sum of:
0.007022067 = weight(_text_:e in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007022067 = score(doc=996,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 996, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=996)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Many dedicated scientists reject the concept of maintaining a "work-life balance." They argue that work is actually a huge part of life. In the mind-set of these scientists, weekdays and weekends are equally appropriate for working on their research. Although we all have encountered such people, we may wonder how widespread this condition is with other scientists in our field. This brief communication probes work-life balance issues among JASIST authors and editors. We collected and examined the publication histories for 1,533 of the 2,402 articles published in JASIST between 2001 and 2012. Although there is no rush to submit, revise, or accept papers, we found that 11% of these events happened during weekends and that this trend has been increasing since 2005. Our findings suggest that working during the weekend may be one of the ways that scientists cope with the highly demanding era of "publish or perish." We hope that our findings will raise an awareness of the steady increases in work among scientists before it affects our work-life balance even more.
- Language
- e
-
Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994)
0.06
0.05681798 = product of:
0.11363596 = sum of:
0.11363596 = sum of:
0.016384823 = weight(_text_:e in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016384823 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.2223318 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
0.09725113 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09725113 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
- Language
- e
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990)
0.06
0.05681798 = product of:
0.11363596 = sum of:
0.11363596 = sum of:
0.016384823 = weight(_text_:e in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016384823 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.2223318 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
0.09725113 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09725113 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:29
- Language
- e
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990)
0.06
0.05681798 = product of:
0.11363596 = sum of:
0.11363596 = sum of:
0.016384823 = weight(_text_:e in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016384823 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.2223318 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
0.09725113 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09725113 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:55
- Language
- e
-
Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998)
0.05
0.054970965 = product of:
0.10994193 = sum of:
0.10994193 = sum of:
0.011703446 = weight(_text_:e in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011703446 = score(doc=3690,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.15880844 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
0.09823848 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09823848 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, 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=3690)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 5.1999 19:22:35
- Language
- e
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.05
0.054970965 = product of:
0.10994193 = sum of:
0.10994193 = sum of:
0.011703446 = weight(_text_:e in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011703446 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.15880844 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.09823848 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09823848 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = 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)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:22:28
- Language
- e
-
Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005)
0.05
0.048701126 = product of:
0.09740225 = sum of:
0.09740225 = sum of:
0.014044134 = weight(_text_:e in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014044134 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.19057012 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
0.08335812 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08335812 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2007 17:02:22
- Language
- e
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.05
0.048701126 = product of:
0.09740225 = sum of:
0.09740225 = sum of:
0.014044134 = weight(_text_:e in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014044134 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.19057012 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.08335812 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08335812 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
- Language
- e
-
Reedijk, J.; Moed, H.F.: Is the impact of journal impact factors decreasing? (2008)
0.05
0.046559483 = sum of:
0.044218794 = product of:
0.17687517 = sum of:
0.17687517 = weight(_text_:editors in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.17687517 = score(doc=1734,freq=6.0), product of:
0.34419647 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.5138785 = fieldWeight in 1734, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1734)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.002340689 = product of:
0.004681378 = sum of:
0.004681378 = weight(_text_:e in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004681378 = score(doc=1734,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.063523374 = fieldWeight in 1734, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1734)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of the use of the citation-based journal impact factor for evaluative purposes upon the behaviour of authors and editors. It seeks to give a critical examination of a number of claims as regards the manipulability of this indicator on the basis of an empirical analysis of publication and referencing practices of authors and journal editors Design/methodology/approach - The paper describes mechanisms that may affect the numerical values of journal impact factors. It also analyses general, "macro" patterns in large samples of journals in order to obtain indications of the extent to which such mechanisms are actually applied on a large scale. Finally it presents case studies of particular science journals in order to illustrate what their effects may be in individual cases. Findings - The paper shows that the commonly used journal impact factor can to some extent be relatively easily manipulated. It discusses several types of strategic editorial behaviour, and presents cases in which journal impact factors were - intentionally or otherwise - affected by particular editorial strategies. These findings lead to the conclusion that one must be most careful in interpreting and using journal impact factors, and that authors, editors and policy makers must be aware of their potential manipulability. They also show that some mechanisms occur as of yet rather infrequently, while for others it is most difficult if not impossible to assess empirically how often they are actually applied. If their frequency of occurrence increases, one should come to the conclusion that the impact of impact factors is decreasing. Originality/value - The paper systematically describes a number of claims about the manipulability of journal impact factors that are often based on "informal" or even anecdotal evidences and illustrates how these claims can be further examined in thorough empirical research of large data samples.
- Language
- e
-
Campanario, J.M.; Acedo, E.: Rejecting highly cited papers : the views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists (2007)
0.04
0.04325995 = sum of:
0.0382946 = product of:
0.1531784 = sum of:
0.1531784 = weight(_text_:editors in 273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1531784 = score(doc=273,freq=2.0), product of:
0.34419647 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.44503185 = fieldWeight in 273, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=273)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.0049653514 = product of:
0.009930703 = sum of:
0.009930703 = weight(_text_:e in 273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009930703 = score(doc=273,freq=4.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.13475344 = fieldWeight in 273, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=273)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We studied the views of scientists who experience resistance to their new ideas by surveying a sample of 815 scientists who are authors of highly cited articles. The 132 responses (16.2%) received indicated that only 47 scientists (35.6%) had no problems with referees, editors, or other scientists. The most common causes of difficulty were rejection of the manuscript, and scepticism, ignorance, and incomprehension. The most common arguments given by referees against papers were that the findings were an insufficient advance to warrant publication, lacked practical impact, were based on a wrong hypothesis, or were based on a wrong concept. The strategies authors used to overcome resistance included obtaining help from someone to publish problematic papers, making changes in the text, and simple persistence. Despite difficulties, however, some respondents acknowledged the positive effect of peer review.
- Language
- e
-
Scholarly metrics under the microscope : from citation analysis to academic auditing (2015)
0.04
0.035894424 = product of:
0.07178885 = sum of:
0.07178885 = sum of:
0.01621677 = weight(_text_:e in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01621677 = score(doc=4654,freq=6.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.22005144 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
0.055572078 = weight(_text_:22 in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055572078 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4654, 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=4654)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Classification
- AZC (E)
- Date
- 22. 1.2017 17:12:50
- GHBS
- AZC (E)
- Language
- e
-
Ivanisevic, R.; Sapunar, D.: Multiple authorship in a small medical journal : a case study of the Croatian Medical Journal (2006)
0.03
0.034838025 = sum of:
0.031912163 = product of:
0.12764865 = sum of:
0.12764865 = weight(_text_:editors in 5106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12764865 = score(doc=5106,freq=2.0), product of:
0.34419647 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.37085986 = fieldWeight in 5106, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5106)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.0029258614 = product of:
0.005851723 = sum of:
0.005851723 = weight(_text_:e in 5106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005851723 = score(doc=5106,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 5106, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, 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.
- Language
- e
-
Brown, C.: ¬The evolution of preprints in the scholarly communication of physicists and astronomers (2001)
0.03
0.034838025 = sum of:
0.031912163 = product of:
0.12764865 = sum of:
0.12764865 = weight(_text_:editors in 5184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12764865 = score(doc=5184,freq=2.0), product of:
0.34419647 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.37085986 = fieldWeight in 5184, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5184)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.0029258614 = product of:
0.005851723 = sum of:
0.005851723 = weight(_text_:e in 5184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005851723 = score(doc=5184,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 5184, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5184)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In one of two bibliometric papers in this issue Brown looks at formal publication and citation of Eprints as shown by the policies and practices of 37 top tier physics journals, and by citation trends in ISI's SciSearch database and Journal Citation Reports. Citation analysis was carried out if Eprint cites were indicated by editor response, instruction to authors sections, reports in the literature, or actual examination of citation lists. Total contribution to 12 archives and their citation counts in the journals were compiled. Of the 13 editors surveyed that responded, 8 published papers that had appeared in the archive. Two of these required removal from the archive at publication; two of the 13 did not publish papers that have appeared as Eprints. A review journal that solicits its contributions allowed citation of Eprints. Seven allowed citations to Eprints, but were less than enthusiastic.Nearly 36,000 citations were made to the 12 archives. Citations to the 37 journals and their impact factors remain constant over the period of 1991 to 1998. Eprint citations appear to peak about 3 years after appearance as do citations to published papers. Contribution to the archives, and their use as measured by citation, is clearly growing. Citation form and publishing policy varies from journal to journal.
- Language
- e
-
Rowlands, I.: Emerald authorship data, Lotka's law and research productivity (2005)
0.03
0.034838025 = sum of:
0.031912163 = product of:
0.12764865 = sum of:
0.12764865 = weight(_text_:editors in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12764865 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.34419647 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.37085986 = fieldWeight in 656, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=656)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.0029258614 = product of:
0.005851723 = sum of:
0.005851723 = weight(_text_:e in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005851723 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 656, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=656)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This paper offers a practical insight into the application of Lotka's law of author productivity to the question of how likely it is that an author will return to a particular publisher (rather than make another contribution to a subject literature, which is its usual application). The question of author loyalty, especially repeat visits, is one which is of great interest to publishers. Design/methodology/approach - This paper shows, possibly for the first time, that the author productivity distribution predicted by Lotka's law for subject literatures also holds for publisher aggregates, in this case, all Emerald authors. Findings - The ideas presented here are speculative and programmatic: they raise questions and provide a robust intellectual framework for further research into the determinants of author loyalty, as seen from the publisher side. Practical implications - The implications for commissioning editors and marketing departments in journal publishing houses are that repeat visiting authors are indeed scarce commodities, not necessarily because of barriers put in their way by publishers, but because research production is very asymmetrically skewed in favour of a small productive élite. Originality/value - By analysing survey data it should be possible, within very broad parameters, to identify clusters of say high, medium and low research activity authors. This would provide insight into potential "hot spots" of future publishing intent and, in the case of dense and overworked research areas, early warning as to when to start looking elsewhere for future articles.
- Language
- e
-
Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009)
0.03
0.034436896 = product of:
0.06887379 = sum of:
0.06887379 = sum of:
0.009930703 = weight(_text_:e in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009930703 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.13475344 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.058943093 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058943093 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051270977 = queryNorm
0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:22:35
- Language
- e
