Search (235 results, page 1 of 12)

0.06922181 = product of:
  0.13844362 = sum of:
    0.13844362 = sum of:
      0.08911928 = weight(_text_:subject in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08911928 = score(doc=673,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.5475522 = fieldWeight in 673, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=673)
      0.049324334 = weight(_text_:22 in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049324334 = score(doc=673,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of a bibliometric study of 111 theses accepted by the Department of Library and Information Science, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria, between 1977 and 1992. The analysis was based on year, type and degree awarded, subject, type of library and geographical area. Concludes that the highest number of submissions was 1991, when 108 MLS theses (97,29%) and 3 PhD theses (2,71%) were accepted. Libraries and readers was the most concetrated subject while the academic library was the most discussed type of library

Source

Library focus. 13/14(1995/96), S.22-25

0.061044957 = product of:
  0.122089915 = sum of:
    0.122089915 = sum of:
      0.07276558 = weight(_text_:subject in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07276558 = score(doc=5092,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.4470745 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
      0.049324334 = weight(_text_:22 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049324334 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

0.049648255 = product of:
  0.09929651 = sum of:
    0.09929651 = sum of:
      0.055699546 = weight(_text_:subject in 1534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055699546 = score(doc=1534,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 1534, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1534)
      0.043596964 = weight(_text_:22 in 1534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043596964 = score(doc=1534,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1534, 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=1534)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper uncovers patterns of knowledge dissemination among scientific disciplines. Although the transfer of knowledge is largely unobservable, citations from one discipline to another have been proven to be an effective proxy to study disciplinary knowledge flow. This study constructs a knowledge-flow network in which a node represents a Journal Citation Reports subject category and a link denotes the citations from one subject category to another. Using the concept of shortest path, several quantitative measurements are proposed and applied to a knowledge-flow network. Based on an examination of subject categories in Journal Citation Reports, this study indicates that social science domains tend to be more self-contained, so it is more difficult for knowledge from other domains to flow into them; at the same time, knowledge from science domains, such as biomedicine-, chemistry-, and physics-related domains, can access and be accessed by other domains more easily. This study also shows that social science domains are more disunified than science domains, because three fifths of the knowledge paths from one social science domain to another require at least one science domain to serve as an intermediate. This work contributes to discussions on disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity by providing empirical analysis.

Date

26.10.2014 20:22:22

0.045783717 = product of:
  0.091567434 = sum of:
    0.091567434 = sum of:
      0.054574184 = weight(_text_:subject in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054574184 = score(doc=7659,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
      0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03699325 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It is possible, using ISI's Journal Citation Report (JCR), to calculate average impact factors (AIF) for LCR's subject categories but it can be more useful to know the global Impact Factor (GIF) of a subject category and compare the 2 values. Reports results of a study to compare the relationships between AIFs and GIFs of subjects, based on the particular case of the average impact factor of a subfield versus the impact factor of this subfield as a whole, the difference being studied between an average of quotients, denoted as AQ, and a global average, obtained as a quotient of averages, and denoted as GQ. In the case of impact factors, AQ becomes the average impact factor of a field, and GQ becomes its global impact factor. Discusses a number of applications of this technique in the context of informetrics and scientometrics

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170

0.045783717 = product of:
  0.091567434 = sum of:
    0.091567434 = sum of:
      0.054574184 = weight(_text_:subject in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054574184 = score(doc=4000,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
      0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03699325 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Author research impact was examined based on citer analysis (the number of citers as opposed to the number of citations) for 90 highly cited authors grouped into three broad subject areas. Citer-based outcome measures were also compared with more traditional citation-based measures for levels of association. The authors found that there are significant differences in citer-based outcomes among the three broad subject areas examined and that there is a high degree of correlation between citer and citation-based measures for all measures compared, except for two outcomes calculated for the social sciences. Citer-based measures do produce slightly different rankings of authors based on citer counts when compared to more traditional citation counts. Examples are provided. Citation measures may not adequately address the influence, or reach, of an author because citations usually do not address the origin of the citation beyond self-citations.

Date

28. 9.2010 12:54:22

0.044537727 = product of:
  0.08907545 = sum of:
    0.08907545 = sum of:
      0.04547849 = weight(_text_:subject in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04547849 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.043596964 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043596964 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.

0.0440901 = product of:
  0.0881802 = sum of:
    0.0881802 = sum of:
      0.045021407 = weight(_text_:subject in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045021407 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.043158792 = weight(_text_:22 in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043158792 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.3, S.38-44

0.0440901 = product of:
  0.0881802 = sum of:
    0.0881802 = sum of:
      0.045021407 = weight(_text_:subject in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045021407 = score(doc=3689,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 3689, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3689)
      0.043158792 = weight(_text_:22 in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043158792 = score(doc=3689,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3689, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3689)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Date

22. 5.1999 19:18:46

0.0381531 = product of:
  0.0763062 = sum of:
    0.0763062 = sum of:
      0.04547849 = weight(_text_:subject in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04547849 = score(doc=4147,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
      0.03082771 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03082771 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.

Date

8. 1.2011 19:22:13

0.0381531 = product of:
  0.0763062 = sum of:
    0.0763062 = sum of:
      0.04547849 = weight(_text_:subject in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04547849 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
      0.03082771 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03082771 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.

0.037877556 = product of:
  0.07575511 = sum of:
    0.07575511 = sum of:
      0.032158148 = weight(_text_:subject in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032158148 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.043596964 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043596964 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, 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=2734)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.

Date

22. 3.2009 12:43:51

0.037791513 = product of:
  0.075583026 = sum of:
    0.075583026 = sum of:
      0.038589776 = weight(_text_:subject in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038589776 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
      0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03699325 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 102, 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=102)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

University librarians continue to face the difficult task of determining which journals remain crucial for their collections during these times of static financial resources and escalating journal costs. One evaluative tool, Journal Citation Reports (JCR), recently has become available on CD-ROM, making it simpler for librarians to use its citation data as input for ranking journals. But many librarians remain unconvinced that the global citation data from the JCR bears enough correspondence to their local situation to be useful. In this project, I explore the correlation between global citation data available from JCR with local citation data generated specifically for the University of British Columbia, for 20 subject fields in the sciences and social sciences. The significant correlations obtained in this study suggest that large research-oriented university libraries could consider substituting global citation data for local citation data when evaluating their journals, with certain cautions.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.037791513 = product of:
  0.075583026 = sum of:
    0.075583026 = sum of:
      0.038589776 = weight(_text_:subject in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038589776 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 656, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=656)
      0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03699325 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 656, 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=656)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

According to current research in bibliometrics, percentiles (or percentile rank classes) are the most suitable method for normalizing the citation counts of individual publications in terms of the subject area, the document type, and the publication year. Up to now, bibliometric research has concerned itself primarily with the calculation of percentiles. This study suggests how percentiles (and percentile rank classes) can be analyzed meaningfully for an evaluation study. Publication sets from four universities are compared with each other to provide sample data. These suggestions take into account on the one hand the distribution of percentiles over the publications in the sets (universities here) and on the other hand concentrate on the range of publications with the highest citation impact-that is, the range that is usually of most interest in the evaluation of scientific performance.

Date

22. 3.2013 19:44:17

0.03149293 = product of:
  0.06298586 = sum of:
    0.06298586 = sum of:
      0.032158148 = weight(_text_:subject in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032158148 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.03082771 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03082771 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.

0.03149293 = product of:
  0.06298586 = sum of:
    0.06298586 = sum of:
      0.032158148 = weight(_text_:subject in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032158148 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
      0.03082771 = weight(_text_:22 in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03082771 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using 17 fully open-access journals published uninterruptedly during 2000 to 2004 in the field of library and information science, the present study investigates the impact of these open-access journals in terms of quantity of articles published, subject distribution of the articles, synchronous and diachronous impact factor, immediacy index, and journals' and authors' self-citation. The results indicate that during this 5-year publication period, there are as many as 1,636 articles published by these journals. At the same time, the articles have received a total of 8,591 Web citations during a 7-year citation period. Eight of 17 journals have received more than 100 citations. First Monday received the highest number of citations; however, the average number of citations per article was the highest in D-Lib Magazine. The value of the synchronous impact factor varies from 0.6989 to 1.0014 during 2002 to 2005, and the diachronous impact factor varies from 1.472 to 2.487 during 2000 to 2004. The range of the immediacy index varies between 0.0714 and 1.395. D-Lib Magazine has an immediacy index value above 0.5 in all the years whereas the immediacy index value varies from year to year for the other journals. When the citations of sample articles were analyzed according to source, it was found that 40.32% of the citations came from full-text articles, followed by 33.35% from journal articles. The percentage of journals' self-citation was only 6.04%.

Date

22. 3.2009 17:54:59

0.03149293 = product of:
  0.06298586 = sum of:
    0.06298586 = sum of:
      0.032158148 = weight(_text_:subject in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032158148 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
      0.03082771 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03082771 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A statistical analysis of full text downloads of articles in Elsevier's ScienceDirect covering all disciplines reveals large differences in download frequencies, their skewness, and their correlation with Scopus-based citation counts, between disciplines, journals, and document types. Download counts tend to be 2 orders of magnitude higher and less skewedly distributed than citations. A mathematical model based on the sum of two exponentials does not adequately capture monthly download counts. The degree of correlation at the article level within a journal is similar to that at the journal level in the discipline covered by that journal, suggesting that the differences between journals are, to a large extent, discipline specific. Despite the fact that in all studied journals download and citation counts per article positively correlate, little overlap may exist between the set of articles appearing in the top of the citation distribution and that with the most frequently downloaded ones. Usage and citation leaks, bulk downloading, differences between reader and author populations in a subject field, the type of document or its content, differences in obsolescence patterns between downloads and citations, and different functions of reading and citing in the research process all provide possible explanations of differences between download and citation distributions.

Date

22. 1.2016 14:11:17

0.029778862 = product of:
  0.059557725 = sum of:
    0.059557725 = product of:
      0.11911545 = sum of:
        0.11911545 = weight(_text_:subject in 1035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11911545 = score(doc=1035,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.73184985 = fieldWeight in 1035, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Examines how several commonly measured properties of subject literatures vary as an important factor in the compilation of subject collections (the amount which a document 'says' about a subject) is varied. This document property has been expressed in formal terms and given a simple measure for the one subject examined, the research topic of Bradford's law of scattering. It is found that lowering the level of subject aboutness required for admission to a collection produces a large increase in the size of the collection obtained, and an appreciable change in some size related properties

0.027287092 = product of:
  0.054574184 = sum of:
    0.054574184 = product of:
      0.10914837 = sum of:
        0.10914837 = weight(_text_:subject in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10914837 = score(doc=2840,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.67061174 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper explores the ISI Journal Citation Reports (JCR) bibliographic and subject structures through Library of Congress (LC) and American research libraries cataloging and classification methodology. The 2006 Science Citation Index JCR Behavioral Sciences subject category journals are used as an example. From the library perspective, the main fault of the JCR bibliographic structure is that the JCR mistakenly identifies journal title segments as journal bibliographic entities, seriously affecting journal rankings by total cites and the impact factor. In respect to JCR subject structure, the title segment, which constitutes the JCR bibliographic basis, is posited as the best bibliographic entity for the citation measurement of journal subject relationships. Through factor analysis and other methods, the JCR subject categorization of journals is tested against their LC subject headings and classification. The finding is that JCR and library journal subject analyses corroborate, clarify, and correct each other.

0.024662167 = product of:
  0.049324334 = sum of:
    0.049324334 = product of:
      0.09864867 = sum of:
        0.09864867 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09864867 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419

0.024662167 = product of:
  0.049324334 = sum of:
    0.049324334 = product of:
      0.09864867 = sum of:
        0.09864867 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09864867 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22