Search (122 results, page 1 of 7)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Coleman, A.: Self-archiving and the copyright transfer agreements of ISI-ranked library and information science journals : analytic advantages (2007) 0.06 
    0.06199302 = product of:
  0.24797209 = sum of:
    0.24797209 = weight(_text_:field's in 72) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24797209 = score(doc=72,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.48649582 = fieldWeight in 72, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=72)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    A study of Thomson-Scientific ISI ranked Library and Information Science (LIS) journals (n=52) is reported. The study examined the stances of publishers as expressed in the Copyright Transfer Agreements (CTAs) of the journals toward self-archiving, the practice of depositing digital copies of one's works in an Open Archives Initiative (OAI)-compliant open access repository. Sixty-two percent (32) do not make their CTAs available on the open Web; 38% (20) do. Of the 38% that do make CTAs available, two are open access journals. Of the 62% that do not have a publicly available CTA, 40% are silent about self-archiving. Even among the 20 journal CTAs publicly available there is a high level of ambiguity. Closer examination augmented by publisher policy documents on copyright, self-archiving, and instructions to authors reveals that only five, 10% of the ISI-ranked LIS journals in the study, actually prohibit self-archiving by publisher rule. Copyright is a moving target, but publishers appear to be acknowledging that copyright and open access can co-exist in scholarly journal publishing. The ambivalence of LIS journal publishers provides unique opportunities to members of the community. Authors can self-archive in open access archives. A societyled, global scholarly communication consortium can engage in the strategic building of the LIS information commons. Aggregating OAI-compliant archives and developing disciplinary-specific library services for an LIS commons has the potential to increase the field's research impact and visibility. It may also ameliorate its own scholarly communication and publishing systems and serve as a model for others.
  2. Zhao, D.; Strotmann, A.: Can citation analysis of Web publications better detect research fronts? (2007) 0.06 
    0.06199302 = product of:
  0.24797209 = sum of:
    0.24797209 = weight(_text_:field's in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24797209 = score(doc=471,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.48649582 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    We present evidence that in some research fields, research published in journals and reported on the Web may collectively represent different evolutionary stages of the field, with journals lagging a few years behind the Web on average, and that a "two-tier" scholarly communication system may therefore be evolving. We conclude that in such fields, (a) for detecting current research fronts, author co-citation analyses (ACA) using articles published on the Web as a data source can outperform traditional ACAs using articles published in journals as data, and that (b) as a result, it is important to use multiple data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication for a complete picture of communication patterns. Our evidence stems from comparing the respective intellectual structures of the XML research field, a subfield of computer science, as revealed from three sets of ACA covering two time periods: (a) from the field's beginnings in 1996 to 2001, and (b) from 2001 to 2006. For the first time period, we analyze research articles both from journals as indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) and from the Web as indexed by CiteSeer. We follow up by an ACA of SCI data for the second time period. We find that most trends in the evolution of this field from the first to the second time period that we find when comparing ACA results from the SCI between the two time periods already were apparent in the ACA results from CiteSeer during the first time period.
  3. Holsapple, C.W.: ¬A publication power approach for identifying premier information systems journals (2008) 0.06 
    0.06199302 = product of:
  0.24797209 = sum of:
    0.24797209 = weight(_text_:field's in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24797209 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.48649582 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Stressing that some universities have adopted unrealistic requirements for tenure of information systems (IS) faculty members, a recent editorial in MIS Quarterly contends that the group of premier IS journals needs to be generally recognized as having more than just two members. This article introduces the publication power approach to identifying the premier IS journals, and it does indeed find that there are more than two. A journal's publication power is calculated from the actual publishing behaviors of full-time, tenured IS faculty members at a sizable set of leading research universities. The underlying premise is that these researchers produce excellent work, collectively spanning the IS field's subject matter, and that the greatest concentrations of their collective work appear in highest visibility, most important journals suitable for its subject matter. The new empirically based approach to identifying premier IS journals (and, more broadly, identifying journals that figure most prominently in publishing activity of tenured IS researchers) offers an attractive alternative to promulgations by individuals or cliques (possibly based on outdated tradition or vested interests), to opinion surveys (subjective, possibly ill-informed, vague about rating criteria, and/or biased in various ways), and to citation analyses (which ignore semantics of references and, in the case of ISI impact factors, have additional problems that cast considerable doubt on their meaningfulness within the IS field and its subdisciplines). Results of the publication power approach can be applied and supplemented according to needs of a particular university in setting its evaluation standards for IS tenure, promotion, and merit decisions.
  4. Larivière, V.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Cronin, B.: ¬A bibliometric chronicling of library and information science's first hundred years (2012) 0.06 
    0.06199302 = product of:
  0.24797209 = sum of:
    0.24797209 = weight(_text_:field's in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24797209 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.48649582 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.
  5. Xu, L.: Research synthesis methods and library and information science : shared problems, limited diffusion (2016) 0.06 
    0.06199302 = product of:
  0.24797209 = sum of:
    0.24797209 = weight(_text_:field's in 3057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24797209 = score(doc=3057,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.48649582 = fieldWeight in 3057, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3057)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Interests of researchers who engage with research synthesis methods (RSM) intersect with library and information science (LIS) research and practice. This intersection is described by a summary of conceptualizations of research synthesis in a diverse set of research fields and in the context of Swanson's (1986) discussion of undiscovered public knowledge. Through a selective literature review, research topics that intersect with LIS and RSM are outlined. Topics identified include open access, information retrieval, bias and research information ethics, referencing practices, citation patterns, and data science. Subsequently, bibliometrics and topic modeling are used to present a systematic overview of the visibility of RSM in LIS. This analysis indicates that RSM became visible in LIS in the 1980s. Overall, LIS research has drawn substantially from general and internal medicine, the field's own literature, and business; and is drawn on by health and medical sciences, computing, and business. Through this analytical overview, it is confirmed that research synthesis is more visible in the health and medical literature in LIS; but suggests that, LIS, as a meta-science, has the potential to make substantive contributions to a broader variety of fields in the context of topics related to research synthesis methods.
  6. Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986) 0.03 
    0.031367116 = product of:
  0.12546846 = sum of:
    0.12546846 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12546846 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
  7. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.03 
    0.031367116 = product of:
  0.12546846 = sum of:
    0.12546846 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12546846 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  8. Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987) 0.03 
    0.031367116 = product of:
  0.12546846 = sum of:
    0.12546846 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12546846 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
  9. Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998) 0.03 
    0.027724875 = product of:
  0.1108995 = sum of:
    0.1108995 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1108995 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:22:35
  10. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.03 
    0.027724875 = product of:
  0.1108995 = sum of:
    0.1108995 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1108995 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  11. Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994) 0.03 
    0.027446225 = product of:
  0.1097849 = sum of:
    0.1097849 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1097849 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
  12. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990) 0.03 
    0.027446225 = product of:
  0.1097849 = sum of:
    0.1097849 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1097849 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:29
  13. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990) 0.03 
    0.027446225 = product of:
  0.1097849 = sum of:
    0.1097849 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1097849 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:55
  14. Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005) 0.02 
    0.023525335 = product of:
  0.09410134 = sum of:
    0.09410134 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09410134 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2007 17:02:22
  15. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.02 
    0.023525335 = product of:
  0.09410134 = sum of:
    0.09410134 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09410134 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  16. Raan, A.F.J. van: Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators : research group indicator distributions and correlations (2006) 0.02 
    0.016634926 = product of:
  0.066539705 = sum of:
    0.066539705 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066539705 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 5275, 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=5275)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:20:22
  17. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.02 
    0.016634926 = product of:
  0.066539705 = sum of:
    0.066539705 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066539705 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  18. Li, T.-C.: Reference sources in periodicals : research note (1995) 0.02 
    0.015683558 = product of:
  0.06273423 = sum of:
    0.06273423 = weight(_text_:22 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06273423 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Presents a list of 53 periodicals in 22 subject fields which regularly provide bibliographies of theses, research in progress and patents in their particular subject field. The fields of business, economics, history and literature have most periodical listings of dissertations and theses. Also lists 63 periodicals in 25 sub-disciplines which provide rankings or ratings. Rankings and ratings information predominates in the fields of business, sports and games, finance and banking, and library and information science
  19. Pichappan, P.; Sangaranachiyar, S.: Ageing approach to scientific eponyms (1996) 0.02 
    0.015683558 = product of:
  0.06273423 = sum of:
    0.06273423 = weight(_text_:22 in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06273423 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 80, 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=80)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Footnote
    Report presented at the 16th National Indian Association of Special Libraries and Information Centres Seminar Special Interest Group Meeting on Informatrics in Bombay, 19-22 Dec 94
  20. Mommoh, O.M.: Subject analysis of post-graduate theses in library, archival and information science at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (1995/96) 0.02 
    0.015683558 = product of:
  0.06273423 = sum of:
    0.06273423 = weight(_text_:22 in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06273423 = score(doc=673,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 673, 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=673)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Library focus. 13/14(1995/96), S.22-25

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 113
  • d 8
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 120
  • m 2
  • el 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications