Search (133 results, page 1 of 7)

0.07824998 = product of:
  0.19562496 = sum of:
    0.16137141 = weight(_text_:views in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16137141 = score(doc=5272,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.55259997 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
    0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034253553 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article describes the latest development of a generic approach to detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. The work makes substantial theoretical and methodological contributions to progressive knowledge domain visualization. A specialty is conceptualized and visualized as a time-variant duality between two fundamental concepts in information science: research fronts and intellectual bases. A research front is defined as an emergent and transient grouping of concepts and underlying research issues. The intellectual base of a research front is its citation and co-citation footprint in scientific literature - an evolving network of scientific publications cited by research-front concepts. Kleinberg's (2002) burst-detection algorithm is adapted to identify emergent research-front concepts. Freeman's (1979) betweenness centrality metric is used to highlight potential pivotal points of paradigm shift over time. Two complementary visualization views are designed and implemented: cluster views and time-zone views. The contributions of the approach are that (a) the nature of an intellectual base is algorithmically and temporally identified by emergent research-front terms, (b) the value of a co-citation cluster is explicitly interpreted in terms of research-front concepts, and (c) visually prominent and algorithmically detected pivotal points substantially reduce the complexity of a visualized network. The modeling and visualization process is implemented in CiteSpace II, a Java application, and applied to the analysis of two research fields: mass extinction (1981-2004) and terrorism (1990-2003). Prominent trends and pivotal points in visualized networks were verified in collaboration with domain experts, who are the authors of pivotal-point articles. Practical implications of the work are discussed. A number of challenges and opportunities for future studies are identified.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:11:05

0.061162263 = product of:
  0.15290566 = sum of:
    0.11180139 = weight(_text_:views in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11180139 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04110426 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Citation rates are becoming increasingly important in judging the research quality of journals, institutions and departments, and individual faculty. This paper looks at the pattern of citations across different management science journals and over time. A stochastic model is proposed which views the generating mechanism of citations as a gamma mixture of Poisson processes generating overall a negative binomial distribution. This is tested empirically with a large sample of papers published in 1990 from six management science journals and found to fit well. The model is extended to include obsolescence, i.e., that the citation rate for a paper varies over its cited lifetime. This leads to the additional citations distribution which shows that future citations are a linear function of past citations with a time-dependent and decreasing slope. This is also verified empirically in a way that allows different obsolescence functions to be fitted to the data. Conclusions concerning the predictability of future citations, and future research in this area are discussed.

Date

26.12.2007 19:22:05

0.036892578 = product of:
  0.18446289 = sum of:
    0.18446289 = weight(_text_:views in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18446289 = score(doc=1111,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.6316744 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The h-index can be a useful metric for evaluating a person's output of Internet media. Here I advocate and demonstrate adaption of the h-index and the g-index to the top video content creators on YouTube. The h-index for Internet video media is based on videos and their view counts. The h-index is defined as the number of videos with >=h × 10**5 views. The g-index is defined as the number of videos with >=g × 10**5 views on average. When compared with a video creator's total view count, the h-index and g-index better capture both productivity and impact in a single metric.

0.032274283 = product of:
  0.16137141 = sum of:
    0.16137141 = weight(_text_:views in 3349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16137141 = score(doc=3349,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.55259997 = fieldWeight in 3349, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3349)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The large multidisciplinary academic social website ResearchGate aims to help academics to connect with each other and to publicize their work. Despite its popularity, little is known about the age and discipline of the articles uploaded and viewed in the site and whether publication statistics from the site could be useful impact indicators. In response, this article assesses samples of ResearchGate articles uploaded at specific dates, comparing their views in the site to their Mendeley readers and Scopus-indexed citations. This analysis shows that ResearchGate is dominated by recent articles, which attract about three times as many views as older articles. ResearchGate has uneven coverage of scholarship, with the arts and humanities, health professions, and decision sciences poorly represented and some fields receiving twice as many views per article as others. View counts for uploaded articles have low to moderate positive correlations with both Scopus citations and Mendeley readers, which is consistent with them tending to reflect a wider audience than Scopus-publishing scholars. Hence, for articles uploaded to the site, view counts may give a genuinely new audience indicator.

0.031622212 = product of:
  0.15811105 = sum of:
    0.15811105 = weight(_text_:views in 1753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15811105 = score(doc=1753,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.5414352 = fieldWeight in 1753, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1753)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.031622212 = product of:
  0.15811105 = sum of:
    0.15811105 = weight(_text_:views in 273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15811105 = score(doc=273,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.5414352 = fieldWeight in 273, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=273)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

We studied the views of scientists who experience resistance to their new ideas by surveying a sample of 815 scientists who are authors of highly cited articles. The 132 responses (16.2%) received indicated that only 47 scientists (35.6%) had no problems with referees, editors, or other scientists. The most common causes of difficulty were rejection of the manuscript, and scepticism, ignorance, and incomprehension. The most common arguments given by referees against papers were that the findings were an insufficient advance to warrant publication, lacked practical impact, were based on a wrong hypothesis, or were based on a wrong concept. The strategies authors used to overcome resistance included obtaining help from someone to publish problematic papers, making changes in the text, and simple persistence. Despite difficulties, however, some respondents acknowledged the positive effect of peer review.

0.029813705 = product of:
  0.14906852 = sum of:
    0.14906852 = weight(_text_:views in 6692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14906852 = score(doc=6692,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.51047 = fieldWeight in 6692, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6692)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Many mathematicians are not convinced that citation counts provide useful information in the field of mathematics. Describes a study whose aim was to obtain more insight into the significance of citation based indicators in this field. A survey was conducted to answer the question, to what extent do citation scores mirror the opinions of experts concerning the quality of a paper or journal?. Concludes that the experts' views correspond very well with bibliometric indicators based on citation counts

0.029813705 = product of:
  0.14906852 = sum of:
    0.14906852 = weight(_text_:views in 6697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14906852 = score(doc=6697,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.51047 = fieldWeight in 6697, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6697)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Lists the traditionally recognized problems of citation analysis and briefly summarizes empirical research on each before contrasting 2 views of science. One is the traditional view which explains why it was originally believed possible to use citation counts as evaluative data. In contrast, the constructivist view of science explains paper writing and citing behaviour quite differently from the traditional view and makes it highly unlikely that citations can be used as quality indicators

0.02635184 = product of:
  0.1317592 = sum of:
    0.1317592 = weight(_text_:views in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1317592 = score(doc=157,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.45119599 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Bradfordrsquos law of scattering is said to be about subject scattering in information sources. However, in spite of a corpus of writings about the meaning of the word ldquosubjectrdquo and equivalent terms such as ldquoaboutnessrdquo or ldquotopicalityrdquo, the meaning of ldquosubjectrdquo has never been explicitly addressed in relation to Bradfordrsquos law. This paper introduces a distinction between Lexical scattering, Semantic scattering, and Subject scattering. Neither Bradford himself nor any follower has explicitly considered the differences between these three and the implications for the practical applications of Bradfordrsquos law. Traditionally, Bradfordrsquos law has been seen as a neutral and objective tool for the selection of the most central information sources in a field. However, it is hard to find actual reports that describe how Bradfordrsquos law has been applied in practical library and information services. Theoretical as well as historical evidence suggest that the selection of journals based on Bradford-distributions tend to favorite dominant theories and views while suppressing views other than the mainstream at a given time.

0.02635184 = product of:
  0.1317592 = sum of:
    0.1317592 = weight(_text_:views in 2938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1317592 = score(doc=2938,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.45119599 = fieldWeight in 2938, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2938)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Disseminated across the world in more than 100 languages and viewed over 1 billion times, TED Talks is a successful example of web-based science communication. This study investigates the impact of TED Talks videos on YouKu, a Chinese video portal, and YouTube using 6 measures of impact: number of views; likes; dislikes; comments; bookmarks; and shares. In particular, we study the relationship between the topicality and impact of these videos. Findings demonstrate that topics vary greatly in terms of their impact: Topics on entertainment and psychology/philosophy receive more views and likes, whereas design/art and astronomy/biology/oceanography attract fewer comments and bookmarks. Moreover, we identify several topical differences between YouKu and YouTube users. Topics on global issues and technology are more popular on YouKu, whereas topics on entertainment and psychology/philosophy are more popular on YouTube. By analyzing the popularity distribution of videos and the audience characteristics of YouKu, we find that women are more interested in topics on education and psychology/philosophy, whereas men favor topics on technology and astronomy/biology/oceanography.

0.022360278 = product of:
  0.11180139 = sum of:
    0.11180139 = weight(_text_:views in 184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11180139 = score(doc=184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 184, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=184)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The study examined Web co-links to Canadian university Web sites. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) was used to analyze and visualize co-link data as was done in co-citation analysis. Co-link data were collected in ways that would reflect three different views, the global view, the French Canada view, and the English Canada view. Mapping results of the three data sets accurately reflected the ways Canadians see the universities and clearly showed the linguistic and cultural differences within Canadian society. This shows that Web co-linking is not a random phenomenon and that co-link data contain useful information for Web data mining. It is proposed that the method developed in the study can be applied to other contexts such as analyzing relationships of different organizations or countries. This kind of research is promising because of the dynamics and the diversity of the Web.

0.022360278 = product of:
  0.11180139 = sum of:
    0.11180139 = weight(_text_:views in 830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11180139 = score(doc=830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=830)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this research is to examine the practical potentials of Bradford's law in relation to core-journal identification. Design/methodology/approach - Literature studies and empirical tests (Bradford analyses). Findings - Literature studies reveal that the concept of "subject" has never been explicitly addressed in relation to Bradford's law. The results of two empirical tests (Bradford analyses) demonstrate that different operationalizations of the concept of "subject" produce quite different lists of core-journals. Further, an empirical test reveals that Bradford analyses function discriminatorily against minority views. Practical implications - Bradford analysis can no longer be regarded as an objective and neutral method. The received view on Bradford's law needs to be revised. Originality/value - The paper questions one of the old dogmas of the field.

0.022360278 = product of:
  0.11180139 = sum of:
    0.11180139 = weight(_text_:views in 3348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11180139 = score(doc=3348,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 3348, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3348)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Impact is embedded in today's research culture, with increasing importance being placed on the value of research to society. In interdisciplinary and cross-sector projects, team members may hold distinct views on the types of impact they want to create. Set in the context of an interdisciplinary, cross-sector project comprised of partners from academia, industry, and the nonprofit sector, our paper unpacks how these diverse project members understand impact. Our analysis shows that interdisciplinary projects offer a unique opportunity to create impact on a number of different levels. Moreover, it demonstrates that a lack of accountable design and collaboration practices can potentially hinder pathways to impact. Finally, we find that the interdisciplinary perspectives that such projects introduce encourage a rich gamut of sustainable outcomes that go beyond commercialization. Our findings support researchers working in these complex contexts to appreciate the opportunities and challenges involved in interdisciplinary cross-sector research contexts while imparting them with strategies for overcoming these challenges.

0.021922274 = product of:
  0.10961137 = sum of:
    0.10961137 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10961137 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

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

0.021922274 = product of:
  0.10961137 = sum of:
    0.10961137 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10961137 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.021922274 = product of:
  0.10961137 = sum of:
    0.10961137 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10961137 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22

0.019376736 = product of:
  0.09688368 = sum of:
    0.09688368 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09688368 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:22:35

0.019376736 = product of:
  0.09688368 = sum of:
    0.09688368 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09688368 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.01918199 = product of:
  0.095909946 = sum of:
    0.095909946 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095909946 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)

0.01918199 = product of:
  0.095909946 = sum of:
    0.095909946 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095909946 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:29