Search (1224 results, page 1 of 62)

0.093382016 = product of:
  0.28014603 = sum of:
    0.007030698 = weight(_text_:in in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007030698 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.27311534 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27311534 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36446604 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Content

Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.

0.06941209 = product of:
  0.13882418 = sum of:
    0.01179084 = weight(_text_:in in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01179084 = score(doc=135,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
    0.109559864 = weight(_text_:education in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.109559864 = score(doc=135,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2025344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.54094446 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
    0.017473478 = product of:
      0.034946956 = sum of:
        0.034946956 = weight(_text_:22 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034946956 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 135, 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=135)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

The reference lists of forty-three education dissertations on curriculum and instruction completed at the University of Minnesota during the calendar years 2000-2002 were analyzed to inform collection development. As one measure of use of the academic library collection, the citation analysis yielded data to guide journal selection, retention, and cancellation decisions. The project aimed to ensure that the most frequently cited journals were retained on subscription. The serial monograph ratio for citation also was evaluated in comparison with other studies and explored in the context of funding ratios. Results of citation studies can provide a basis for liaison conversations with faculty in addition to guiding selection decisions. This research project can serve as a model for similar projects in other libraries that look at literature in education as well as other fields.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.059810095 = product of:
  0.11962019 = sum of:
    0.01179084 = weight(_text_:in in 6389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01179084 = score(doc=6389,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 6389, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6389)
    0.090355866 = weight(_text_:great in 6389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090355866 = score(doc=6389,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 6389, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6389)
    0.017473478 = product of:
      0.034946956 = sum of:
        0.034946956 = weight(_text_:22 in 6389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034946956 = score(doc=6389,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6389, 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=6389)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

Examines the use of networked information sources in scholarly communication. Networked information sources are defined broadly to cover: documents and images stored on electronic network hosts; data files; newsgroups; listservs; online information services and electronic periodicals. Reports results of a survey to determine how heavily, if at all, networked information sources are cited in scholarly printed periodicals published in 1993 and 1994. 27 printed periodicals, representing a wide range of subjects and the most influential periodicals in their fields, were identified through the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index Journal Citation Reports. 97 articles were selected for further review and references, footnotes and bibliographies were checked for references to networked information sources. Only 2 articles were found to contain such references. Concludes that, although networked information sources facilitate scholars' work to a great extent during the research process, scholars have yet to incorporate such sources in the bibliographies of their published articles

Source

IFLA journal. 22(1996) no.3, S.240-245

0.04827348 = product of:
  0.09654696 = sum of:
    0.01581907 = weight(_text_:in in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01581907 = score(doc=5270,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.27051896 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
    0.06325441 = weight(_text_:education in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06325441 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2025344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.3123144 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
    0.017473478 = product of:
      0.034946956 = sum of:
        0.034946956 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034946956 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

The age distribution of a country's scientists is an important element in the study of its research capacity. In this article we investigate the age distribution of Japanese scientists in order to find out whether major events such as World War II had an appreciable effect on its features. Data have been obtained from population censuses taken in Japan from 1970 to 1995. A comparison with the situation in China and the United States has been made. We find that the group of scientific researchers outside academia is dominated by the young: those younger than age 35. The personnel group in higher education, on the other hand, is dominated by the baby boomers: those who were born after World War II. Contrary to the Chinese situation we could not find any influence of major nondemographic events. The only influence we found was the increase in enrollment of university students after World War II caused by the reform of the Japanese university system. Female participation in the scientific and university systems in Japan, though still low, is increasing.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:26:24

0.039564338 = product of:
  0.11869301 = sum of:
    0.009133145 = weight(_text_:in in 668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009133145 = score(doc=668,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 668, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=668)
    0.109559864 = weight(_text_:education in 668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.109559864 = score(doc=668,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2025344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.54094446 = fieldWeight in 668, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=668)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Investigates whether a correlation exists between a UK university's academic excellence, as judged by its Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) ratings, and the amount spent on its library. Considers both macro and micro levels, looking at institutions as a whole, and on a departmental level within the area of archaeology. As well as comparing all the higher education institutions, this group is broken down further, comparing the ratings and spending of the Russell and 94 Groups. There are correlations between the different groups of higher education institutions and RAE ratings. However, rather than high RAE ratings causing high library spending or high library spending causing high RAE ratings, it is likely that they are indirectly linked, good universities having both high RAE ratings and good libraries and poor universities having low RAE ratings and less money spent on libraries. Also describes how libraries in universities with archaeology departments allocate budgets.

0.038038407 = product of:
  0.114115216 = sum of:
    0.008700045 = weight(_text_:in in 3442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008700045 = score(doc=3442,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 3442, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3442)
    0.10541517 = weight(_text_:great in 3442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10541517 = score(doc=3442,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 3442, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3442)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Thomson Reuters's Web of Science (WoS) began systematically collecting acknowledgment information in August 2008. Since then, bibliometric analysis of funding acknowledgment (FA) has been growing and has aroused intense interest and attention from both academia and policy makers. Examining the distribution of FA by citation index database, by language, and by acknowledgment type, we noted coverage limitations and potential biases in each analysis. We argue that despite its great value, bibliometric analysis of FA should be used with caution.

0.03478987 = product of:
  0.10436961 = sum of:
    0.014914364 = weight(_text_:in in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014914364 = score(doc=1069,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
    0.08945525 = weight(_text_:education in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08945525 = score(doc=1069,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2025344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.44167927 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The present paper is devoted to two directions in algorithmic classificatory procedures: the journal co-citation analysis as an example of citation networks and lexical analysis of keywords in the titles and texts. What is common to those approaches is the general idea of normalization of deviations of the observed data from the mathematical expectation. The application of the same formula leads to discovery of statistically significant links between objects (journals in one case, keywords - in the other). The results of the journal co-citation analysis are reflected in tables and map for field "Women's Studies" and for field "Information Science and Library Science". An experimental attempt at establishing textual links between words was carried out on two samples from SSCI Data base: (1) EDUCATION and (2) ETHICS. The EDUCATION file included 2180 documents (of which 751 had abstracts); the ETHICS file included 807 documents (289 abstracts). Some examples of the results of this pilot study are given in tabular form . The binary links between words discovered in this way may form triplets or other groups with more than two member words.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem "Special Issue on Infometrics"

0.03476899 = product of:
  0.10430697 = sum of:
    0.01395111 = weight(_text_:in in 4210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01395111 = score(doc=4210,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 4210, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4210)
    0.090355866 = weight(_text_:great in 4210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090355866 = score(doc=4210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 4210, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4210)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The greatest number of open access journals (OAJs) is found in the sciences and their influence is growing. However, there are only a few studies on the acceptance and thereby integration of these OAJs in the scholarly communication system. Even fewer studies provide insight into the differences across disciplines. This study is an analysis of the citing behaviour in journals within three science fields: biology, mathematics, and pharmacy and pharmacology. It is a statistical analysis of OAJs as well as non-OAJs including both the citing and cited side of the journal to journal citations. The multivariate linear regression reveals many similarities in citing behaviour across fields and media. But it also points to great differences in the integration of OAJs. The integration of OAJs in the scholarly communication system varies considerably across fields. The implications for bibliometric research are discussed.

0.03476899 = product of:
  0.10430697 = sum of:
    0.01395111 = weight(_text_:in in 242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01395111 = score(doc=242,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 242, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=242)
    0.090355866 = weight(_text_:great in 242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090355866 = score(doc=242,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 242, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=242)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Characteristics of the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology and 76 other journals listed in the InformationSystems category of the Journal Citation Reports-Science edition 2009 were analyzed. Besides reporting usual bibliographic indicators, we investigated the human cornerstone of any peer-reviewed journal: its editorial board. Demographic data about the 2,846 gatekeepers serving in information systems (IS) editorial boards were collected. We discuss various scientometric indicators supported by descriptive statistics. Our findings reflect the great variety of IS journals in terms of research output, author communities, editorial boards, and gatekeeper demographics (e.g., diversity in gender and location), seniority, authority, and degree of involvement in editorial boards. We believe that these results may help the general public and scholars (e.g., readers, authors, journal gatekeepers, policy makers) to revise and increase their knowledge of scholarly communication in the IS field. The EB_IS_2009 dataset supporting this scientometric study is released as online supplementary material to this article to foster further research on editorial boards.

0.03363397 = product of:
  0.10090191 = sum of:
    0.010546046 = weight(_text_:in in 1753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010546046 = score(doc=1753,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 1753, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1753)
    0.090355866 = weight(_text_:great in 1753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090355866 = score(doc=1753,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 1753, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1753)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Multidimensional data analysis or On-line analytical processing (OLAP) offers a single subject-oriented source for analyzing summary data based an various dimensions. We demonstrate that the OLAP approach gives a promising starting point for advanced analysis and comparison among summary data in informetrics applications. At the moment there is no single precise, commonly accepted logical/conceptual model for multidimensional analysis. This is because the requirements of applications vary considerably. We develop a conceptual/logical multidimensional model for supporting the complex and unpredictable needs of informetrics. Summary data are considered with respect of some dimensions. By changing dimensions the user may construct other views an the same summary data. We develop a multidimensional query language whose basic idea is to support the definition of views in a way, which is natural and intuitive for lay users in the informetrics area. We show that this view-oriented query language has a great expressive power and its degree of declarativity is greater than in contemporary operation-oriented or SQL (Structured Query Language)-like OLAP query languages.

0.033163004 = product of:
  0.09948901 = sum of:
    0.009133145 = weight(_text_:in in 4672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009133145 = score(doc=4672,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 4672, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4672)
    0.090355866 = weight(_text_:great in 4672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090355866 = score(doc=4672,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 4672, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4672)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Twitter provides a channel of collecting and publishing instant information on major events like natural disasters. However, information flow on Twitter is of great volume. For a specific event, messages collected from the Twitter Stream based on either location constraint or predefined keywords would contain a lot of noise. In this article, we propose a method to achieve both high-precision and high-recall in collecting event-related tweets. Our method involves an automatic keyword generation component, and an event-related tweet identification component. For keyword generation, we consider three properties of candidate keywords, namely relevance, coverage, and evolvement. The keyword updating mechanism enables our method to track the main topics of tweets along event development. To minimize annotation effort in identifying event-related tweets, we adopt active learning and incorporate multiple-instance learning which assigns labels to bags instead of instances (that is, individual tweets). Through experiments on two real-world events, we demonstrate the superiority of our method against state-of-the-art alternatives.

0.03039897 = product of:
  0.09119691 = sum of:
    0.01740009 = weight(_text_:in in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01740009 = score(doc=405,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.29755569 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
    0.073796816 = weight(_text_:education in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073796816 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2025344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.3643668 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Refers to the many changes in the research process in the post Second World War period, including the increased involvement of government and industry in establishing R&D laboratories, and by way of grant to universities. Discusses concepts, types, and problems in measuring scientific productivity, reviewing studies since 1926. Examines theoretical developments in relation to the frequency distribution of Lotka's Law of Scientific Productivity. The various studies are mainly non-comparable and inconclusive owing to substantial differences in the analytical methods applied. Poits out the need for methodological standardisation and coordination of research efforts in this area through empirical validation and generalisation of bibliometric models

Source

International information communication and education. 15(1996) no.2, S.161-176

0.030129839 = product of:
  0.09038951 = sum of:
    0.015843466 = weight(_text_:in in 1090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015843466 = score(doc=1090,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.27093613 = fieldWeight in 1090, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1090)
    0.07454605 = weight(_text_:education in 1090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07454605 = score(doc=1090,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2025344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.36806607 = fieldWeight in 1090, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1090)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to visualize the history of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and to examine the characteristics of EBM development in China and the West. We searched the Web of Science and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure database for papers related to EBM. We applied information visualization techniques, citation analysis, cocitation analysis, cocitation cluster analysis, and network analysis to construct historiographies, themes networks, and chronological theme maps regarding EBM in China and the West. EBM appeared to develop in 4 stages: incubation (1972-1992 in the West vs. 1982-1999 in China), initiation (1992-1993 vs. 1999-2000), rapid development (1993-2000 vs. 2000-2004), and stable distribution (2000 onwards vs. 2004 onwards). Although there was a lag in EBM initiation in China compared with the West, the pace of development appeared similar. Our study shows that important differences exist in research themes, domain structures, and development depth, and in the speed of adoption between China and the West. In the West, efforts in EBM have shifted from education to practice, and from the quality of evidence to its translation. In China, there was a similar shift from education to practice, and from production of evidence to its translation. In addition, this concept has diffused to other healthcare areas, leading to the development of evidence-based traditional Chinese medicine, evidence-based nursing, and evidence-based policy making.

0.028374083 = product of:
  0.08512225 = sum of:
    0.0098257 = weight(_text_:in in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0098257 = score(doc=656,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 656, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=656)
    0.07529655 = weight(_text_:great in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07529655 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 656, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=656)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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.

0.028374083 = product of:
  0.08512225 = sum of:
    0.0098257 = weight(_text_:in in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0098257 = score(doc=4368,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
    0.07529655 = weight(_text_:great in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07529655 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

How can citation analysis take into account the highly collaborative nature and unique research and publication culture of biomedical research fields? This study explores this question by introducing last-author citation counting and comparing it with traditional first-author counting and theoretically optimal all-author counting in the stem cell research field for the years 2004-2009. For citation ranking, last-author counting, which is directly supported by Scopus but not by ISI databases, appears to approximate all-author counting quite well in a field where heads of research labs are traditionally listed as last authors; however, first author counting does not. For field mapping, we find that author co-citation analyses based on different counting methods all produce similar overall intellectual structures of a research field, but detailed structures and minor specialties revealed differ to various degrees and thus require great caution to interpret. This is true especially when authors are selected into the analysis based on citedness, because author selection is found to have a greater effect on mapping results than does choice of co-citation counting method. Findings are based on a comprehensive, high-quality dataset extracted in several steps from PubMed and Scopus and subjected to automatic reference and author name disambiguation.

0.028123915 = product of:
  0.084371746 = sum of:
    0.0098257 = weight(_text_:in in 3165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0098257 = score(doc=3165,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 3165, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3165)
    0.07454605 = weight(_text_:education in 3165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07454605 = score(doc=3165,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2025344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.36806607 = fieldWeight in 3165, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3165)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to show how bibliometrics would benefit from a stronger programme of construct validity. Design/methodology/approach The value of the construct validity concept is demonstrated by applying this approach to the evaluation of the h-index, a widely used metric. Findings The paper demonstrates that the h-index comprehensively fails any test of construct validity. In simple terms, the metric does not measure what it purports to measure. This conclusion suggests that the current popularity of the h-index as a topic for bibliometric research represents wasted effort, which might have been avoided if researchers had adopted the approach suggested in this paper. Research limitations/implications This study is based on the analysis of a single bibliometric concept. Practical implications The conclusion that the h-index fails any test in terms of construct validity implies that the widespread use of this metric within the higher education sector as a management tool represents poor practice, and almost certainly results in the misallocation of resources. Social implications This paper suggests that the current enthusiasm for the h-index within the higher education sector is misplaced. The implication is that universities, grant funding bodies and faculty administrators should abandon the use of the h-index as a management tool. Such a change would have a significant effect on current hiring, promotion and tenure practices within the sector, as well as current attitudes towards the measurement of academic performance. Originality/value The originality of the paper lies in the systematic application of the concept of construct validity to bibliometric enquiry.

0.028028307 = product of:
  0.08408492 = sum of:
    0.008788372 = weight(_text_:in in 4578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008788372 = score(doc=4578,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 4578, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4578)
    0.07529655 = weight(_text_:great in 4578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07529655 = score(doc=4578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 4578, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4578)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Just as citations to a book can be counted, so can that book's libcitations-the number of libraries in a consortium that hold it. These holdings counts per title can be obtained from the consortium's union catalog, such as OCLC's WorldCat. Librarians seeking to serve their customers well must be attuned to various kinds of merit in books. The result in WorldCat is a great variation in the libcitations particular books receive. The higher a title's count (or percentile), the more famous it is-either absolutely or within a subject class. Degree of fame also indicates cultural impact, allowing that further documentation of impact may be needed. Using WorldCat data, we illustrate high, medium, and low degrees of fame with 170 titles published during 1990-1995 or 2001-2006 and spanning the 10 main Dewey classes. We use their total libcitation counts or their counts from members of the Association of Research Libraries, or both, as of late 2011. Our analysis of their fame draws on the recognizability of their authors, the extent to which they and their authors are covered by Wikipedia, and whether they have movie or TV versions. Ordinal scales based on Wikipedia coverage and on libcitation counts are very significantly associated.

0.02777814 = product of:
  0.083334416 = sum of:
    0.008788372 = weight(_text_:in in 447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008788372 = score(doc=447,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 447, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=447)
    0.07454605 = weight(_text_:education in 447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07454605 = score(doc=447,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2025344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.36806607 = fieldWeight in 447, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=447)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The well-documented limitations of journal impact factor rankings and perceptual ratings, the evolving scholarly communication system, the open-access movement, and increasing globalization are some reasons that prompted an examination of journal value rather than just impact. Using a single, specialized journal established in 1960, about education for the Information professions, the author discusses the fall from citation grace of the Journal of Education for Library and Information Science (JELIS) in terms of impact factor and declining subscriptions. Journal evaluation studies in Library and Information Science based on subjective ratings are used to show the high rank of JELIS during the same period (1984-2004) and explain why impact factors and perceptual ratings either singly or jointly are inadequate measures for understanding the value of specialized, scholarly journals such as JELIS. This case study was also a search for bibliometric measures of journal value. Three measures, namely journal attraction power, author associativity, and journal consumption power, were selected; two of them were redefined as journal measures of affinity (the proportion of foreign authors), associativity (the amount of collaboration), and calculated as objective indicators of journal value. The affinity and associativity for JELIS calculated for 1984, 1994, 2004, and consumption calculated for 1985 and 1994 show a holding pattern; however, they also reveal interesting dimensions for future study. Journal value is multidimensional and citations do not capture all the facets; costs, benefits, and measures for informative and scientific value must be distinguished and developed in a fuller model of journal value.

0.027635835 = product of:
  0.082907505 = sum of:
    0.0076109543 = weight(_text_:in in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076109543 = score(doc=4279,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
    0.07529655 = weight(_text_:great in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07529655 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.

0.027635835 = product of:
  0.082907505 = sum of:
    0.0076109543 = weight(_text_:in in 4338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076109543 = score(doc=4338,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 4338, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4338)
    0.07529655 = weight(_text_:great in 4338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07529655 = score(doc=4338,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 4338, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4338)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

A model is presented of the manifestation of the birth and development of a scientific specialty in a collection of journal papers. The proposed model, Cumulative Advantage by Paper with Exemplars (CAPE) is an adaptation of Price's cumulative advantage model (D. Price, 1976). Two modifications are made: (a) references are cited in groups by paper, and (b) the model accounts for the generation of highly cited exemplar references immediately after the birth of the specialty. This simple growth process mimics many characteristic features of real collections of papers, including the structure of the paper-to-reference matrix, the reference-per-paper distribution, the paper-per-reference distribution, the bibliographic coupling distribution, the cocitation distribution, the bibliographic coupling clustering coefficient distribution, and the temporal distribution of exemplar references. The model yields a great deal of insight into the process that produces the connectedness and clustering of a collection of articles and references. Two examples are presented and successfully modeled: a collection of 131 articles an MEMS RF (microelectromechnical systems radio frequency) switches, and a collection of 901 articles an the subject of complex networks.