Search (194 results, page 1 of 10)

0.09983505 = product of:
  0.29950514 = sum of:
    0.29950514 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29950514 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39968264 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047143444 = 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(1/3)

Content

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

0.04266995 = product of:
  0.12800984 = sum of:
    0.12800984 = sum of:
      0.089686126 = weight(_text_:methodology in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.089686126 = score(doc=201,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.42231607 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
      0.038323715 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038323715 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.

Date

3. 1.2007 17:22:03

0.033913795 = product of:
  0.10174138 = sum of:
    0.10174138 = sum of:
      0.063417666 = weight(_text_:methodology in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.063417666 = score(doc=2586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 2586, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2586)
      0.038323715 = weight(_text_:22 in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038323715 = score(doc=2586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2586, 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=2586)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to attempt to provide a review of the growing literature on co-authorship networks and the research gaps that may be investigated for future studies in this field. Design/methodology/approach - The existing literature on co-authorship networks was identified, evaluated and interpreted. Narrative review style was followed. Findings - Co-authorship, a proxy of research collaboration, is a key mechanism that links different sets of talent to produce a research output. Co-authorship could also be seen from the perspective of social networks. An in-depth analysis of such knowledge networks provides an opportunity to investigate its structure. Patterns of these relationships could reveal, for example, the mechanism that shapes our scientific community. The study provides a review of the expanding literature on co-authorship networks. Originality/value - This is one of the first comprehensive reviews of network-based studies on co-authorship. The field is fast evolving, opening new gaps for potential research. The study identifies some of these gaps.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.033913795 = product of:
  0.10174138 = sum of:
    0.10174138 = sum of:
      0.063417666 = weight(_text_:methodology in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.063417666 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
      0.038323715 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038323715 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to develop methodology to determine conceptual overlap between research areas. It investigates patterns of terminology usage in scientific abstracts as boundary objects between research specialties. Research specialties were determined by high-level classifications assigned by Thomson Reuters in their Essential Science Indicators file, which provided a strictly hierarchical classification of journals into 22 categories. Results from the query "network theory" were downloaded from the Web of Science. From this file, two top-level groups, economics and social sciences, were selected and topically analyzed to provide a baseline of similarity on which to run an informetric analysis. The Places & Spaces Map of Science (Klavans and Boyack 2007) was used to determine the proximity of disciplines to one another in order to select the two disciplines use in the analysis. Groups analyzed share common theories and goals; however, groups used different language to describe their research. It was found that 61% of term words were shared between the two groups.

0.033913795 = product of:
  0.10174138 = sum of:
    0.10174138 = sum of:
      0.063417666 = weight(_text_:methodology in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.063417666 = score(doc=182,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 182, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=182)
      0.038323715 = weight(_text_:22 in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038323715 = score(doc=182,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 182, 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=182)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of the paper is to analyse the interactions of bridging users in Twitter discussions about vaccination. Design/methodology/approach Conversational threads were collected through filtering the Twitter stream using keywords and the most active participants in the conversations. Following data collection and anonymisation of tweets and user profiles, a retweet network was created to find users bridging the main clusters. Four conversations were selected, ranging from 456 to 1,983 tweets long, and then analysed through content analysis. Findings Although different opinions met in the discussions, a consensus was rarely built. Many sub-threads involved insults and criticism, and participants seemed not interested in shifting their positions. However, examples of reasoned discussions were also found. Originality/value The study analyses conversations on Twitter, which is rarely studied. The focus on the interactions of bridging users adds to the uniqueness of the paper.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.032670997 = product of:
  0.09801299 = sum of:
    0.09801299 = sum of:
      0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05284806 = score(doc=2590,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
      0.04516493 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04516493 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23

0.028261498 = product of:
  0.08478449 = sum of:
    0.08478449 = sum of:
      0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05284806 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
      0.03193643 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03193643 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.028261498 = product of:
  0.08478449 = sum of:
    0.08478449 = sum of:
      0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05284806 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.03193643 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03193643 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the disciplinary orientation of scientific publications that were mentioned on different social media platforms, focussing on their differences and similarities with citation counts. Design/methodology/approach - Social media metrics and readership counts, associated with 500,216 publications and their citation data from the Web of Science database, were collected from Altmetric.com and Mendeley. Results are presented through descriptive statistical analyses together with science maps generated with VOSviewer. Findings - The results confirm Mendeley as the most prevalent social media source with similar characteristics to citations in their distribution across fields and their density in average values per publication. The humanities, natural sciences, and engineering disciplines have a much lower presence of social media metrics. Twitter has a stronger focus on general medicine and social sciences. Other sources (blog, Facebook, Google+, and news media mentions) are more prominent in regards to multidisciplinary journals. Originality/value - This paper reinforces the relevance of Mendeley as a social media source for analytical purposes from a disciplinary perspective, being particularly relevant for the social sciences (together with Twitter). Key implications for the use of social media metrics on the evaluation of research performance (e.g. the concentration of some social media metrics, such as blogs, news items, etc., around multidisciplinary journals) are identified.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.028261498 = product of:
  0.08478449 = sum of:
    0.08478449 = sum of:
      0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05284806 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
      0.03193643 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03193643 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3806, 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=3806)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose Mendeley reader counts have been proposed as early indicators for the impact of academic publications. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether there are enough Mendeley readers for research evaluation purposes during the month when an article is first published. Design/methodology/approach Average Mendeley reader counts were compared to the average Scopus citation counts for 104,520 articles from ten disciplines during the second half of 2016. Findings Articles attracted, on average, between 0.1 and 0.8 Mendeley readers per article in the month in which they first appeared in Scopus. This is about ten times more than the average Scopus citation count. Research limitations/implications Other disciplines may use Mendeley more or less than the ten investigated here. The results are dependent on Scopus's indexing practices, and Mendeley reader counts can be manipulated and have national and seniority biases. Practical implications Mendeley reader counts during the month of publication are more powerful than Scopus citations for comparing the average impacts of groups of documents but are not high enough to differentiate between the impacts of typical individual articles. Originality/value This is the first multi-disciplinary and systematic analysis of Mendeley reader counts from the publication month of an article.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.028261498 = product of:
  0.08478449 = sum of:
    0.08478449 = sum of:
      0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05284806 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
      0.03193643 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03193643 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4410, 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=4410)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between dissemination of research papers on Twitter and its influence on research impact. Design/methodology/approach Four types of journal Twitter accounts (journal, owner, publisher and no Twitter account) were defined to observe differences in the number of tweets and citations. In total, 4,176 articles from 350 journals were extracted from Plum Analytics. This altmetric provider tracks the number of tweets and citations for each paper. Student's t-test for two-paired samples was used to detect significant differences between each group of journals. Regression analysis was performed to detect which variables may influence the getting of tweets and citations. Findings The results show that journals with their own Twitter account obtain more tweets (46 percent) and citations (34 percent) than journals without a Twitter account. Followers is the variable that attracts more tweets (ß=0.47) and citations (ß=0.28) but the effect is small and the fit is not good for tweets (R2=0.46) and insignificant for citations (R2=0.18). Originality/value This is the first study that tests the performance of research journals on Twitter according to their handles, observing how the dissemination of content in this microblogging network influences the citation of their papers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.028261498 = product of:
  0.08478449 = sum of:
    0.08478449 = sum of:
      0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05284806 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
      0.03193643 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03193643 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.024912816 = product of:
  0.07473844 = sum of:
    0.07473844 = product of:
      0.14947689 = sum of:
        0.14947689 = weight(_text_:methodology in 331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14947689 = score(doc=331,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.70386016 = fieldWeight in 331, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=331)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

With the help of bibliometric mapping techniques, we have developed a methodology of 'self-organized' structuring of scientific fields. This methodology is applied to the field of neural network research

0.024912816 = product of:
  0.07473844 = sum of:
    0.07473844 = product of:
      0.14947689 = sum of:
        0.14947689 = weight(_text_:methodology in 511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14947689 = score(doc=511,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.70386016 = fieldWeight in 511, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=511)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Classifying journals or publications into research areas is an essential element of many bibliometric analyses. Classification usually takes place at the level of journals, where the Web of Science subject categories are the most popular classification system. However, journal-level classification systems have two important limitations: They offer only a limited amount of detail, and they have difficulties with multidisciplinary journals. To avoid these limitations, we introduce a new methodology for constructing classification systems at the level of individual publications. In the proposed methodology, publications are clustered into research areas based on citation relations. The methodology is able to deal with very large numbers of publications. We present an application in which a classification system is produced that includes almost 10 million publications. Based on an extensive analysis of this classification system, we discuss the strengths and the limitations of the proposed methodology. Important strengths are the transparency and relative simplicity of the methodology and its fairly modest computing and memory requirements. The main limitation of the methodology is its exclusive reliance on direct citation relations between publications. The accuracy of the methodology can probably be increased by also taking into account other types of relations-for instance, based on bibliographic coupling.

0.022609197 = product of:
  0.06782759 = sum of:
    0.06782759 = sum of:
      0.042278446 = weight(_text_:methodology in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042278446 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.1990817 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
      0.025549144 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025549144 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.022609197 = product of:
  0.06782759 = sum of:
    0.06782759 = sum of:
      0.042278446 = weight(_text_:methodology in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042278446 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.1990817 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
      0.025549144 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025549144 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX. Design/methodology/approach The authors perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, platform offers for books. The authors use two distinct data sets of books. On the one hand, the authors analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other hand, the authors use Clarivate's Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com's capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, the authors compare the findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX. Findings Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries, such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, the authors find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. The comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools. Practical implications This study targets different audience which can benefit from the findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool. Originality/value This is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com's functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via PlumX.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.019783048 = product of:
  0.059349142 = sum of:
    0.059349142 = sum of:
      0.03699364 = weight(_text_:methodology in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03699364 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.1741965 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
      0.0223555 = weight(_text_:22 in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0223555 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the author self-citation behavior in the field of Library and Information Science. Various factors governing the author self-citation behavior have also been studied. Design/methodology/approach The 2012 edition of Social Science Citation Index was consulted for the selection of LIS journals. Under the subject heading "Information Science and Library Science" there were 84 journals and out of these 12 journals were selected for the study based on systematic sampling. The study was confined to original research and review articles that were published in select journals in the year 2009. The main reason to choose 2009 was to get at least five years (2009-2013) citation data from Web of Science Core Collection (excluding Book Citation Index) and SciELO Citation Index. A citation was treated as self-citation whenever one of the authors of citing and cited paper was common, i.e., the set of co-authors of the citing paper and that of the cited one are not disjoint. To minimize the risk of homonyms, spelling variances and misspelling in authors' names, the authors compared full author names in citing and cited articles. Findings A positive correlation between number of authors and total number of citations exists with no correlation between number of authors and number/share of self-citations, i.e., self-citations are not affected by the number of co-authors in a paper. Articles which are produced in collaboration attract more self-citations than articles produced by only one author. There is no statistically significant variation in citations counts (total and self-citations) in works that are result of different types of collaboration. A strong and statistically significant positive correlation exists between total citation count and frequency of self-citations. No relation could be ascertained between total citation count and proportion of self-citations. Authors tend to cite more of their recent works than the work of other authors. Total citation count and number of self-citations are positively correlated with the impact factor of source publication and correlation coefficient for total citations is much higher than that for self-citations. A negative correlation exhibits between impact factor and the share of self-citations. Of particular note is that the correlation in all the cases is of weak nature. Research limitations/implications The research provides an understanding of the author self-citations in the field of LIS. readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study. Originality/value Readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.01969531 = product of:
  0.059085928 = sum of:
    0.059085928 = product of:
      0.118171856 = sum of:
        0.118171856 = weight(_text_:methodology in 3333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.118171856 = score(doc=3333,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.5564503 = fieldWeight in 3333, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The study of the citation histories and ageing of documents are topics that have been addressed from several perspectives, especially in the analysis of documents with delayed recognition or sleeping beauties. However, there is no general methodology that can be extensively applied for different time periods or research fields. In this article, a new methodology for the general analysis of the ageing and durability of scientific papers is presented. This methodology classifies documents into three general types: delayed documents, which receive the main part of their citations later than normal documents; flashes in the pan, which receive citations immediately after their publication but are not cited in the long term; and normal documents, documents with a typical distribution of citations over time. These three types of durability have been analyzed considering the whole population of documents in the Web of Science with at least 5 external citations (i.e., not considering self-citations). Several patterns related to the three types of durability have been found and the potential for further research of the developed methodology is discussed.

0.01761602 = product of:
  0.05284806 = sum of:
    0.05284806 = product of:
      0.10569612 = sum of:
        0.10569612 = weight(_text_:methodology in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10569612 = score(doc=1182,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.49770427 = fieldWeight in 1182, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1182)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Continues a series on topics in research methodology, statistics and data analysis techniques for the library and information sciences. Discusses the chi-square test for relationship between two categorical variables.

0.01743897 = product of:
  0.05231691 = sum of:
    0.05231691 = product of:
      0.10463382 = sum of:
        0.10463382 = weight(_text_:methodology in 3109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10463382 = score(doc=3109,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.4927021 = fieldWeight in 3109, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3109)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We investigate different approaches based on correlation analysis to reduce the complexity of a space of quantitative indicators for the assessment of research performance. The proposed methods group bibliometric indicators into clusters of highly intercorrelated indicators. Each cluster is then associated with a representative indicator. The set of all representatives corresponds to a base of orthogonal metrics capturing independent aspects of research performance and can be exploited to design a composite performance indicator. We apply the devised methodology to isolate orthogonal performance metrics for scholars and journals in the field of computer science and to design a global performance indicator. The methodology is general and can be exploited to design composite indicators that are based on a set of possibly overlapping criteria.

0.017032763 = product of:
  0.051098287 = sum of:
    0.051098287 = product of:
      0.102196574 = sum of:
        0.102196574 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.102196574 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

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