Search (132 results, page 1 of 7)

0.07661651 = sum of:
  0.052462205 = product of:
    0.15738662 = sum of:
      0.15738662 = weight(_text_:objects in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15738662 = score(doc=2835,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.31585476 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05942625 = queryNorm
          0.49828792 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.02415431 = product of:
    0.04830862 = sum of:
      0.04830862 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04830862 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2081006 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05942625 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.067586526 = product of:
  0.13517305 = sum of:
    0.13517305 = product of:
      0.2703461 = sum of:
        0.2703461 = weight(_text_:translation in 6501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2703461 = score(doc=6501,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.34631187 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8275905 = idf(docFreq=353, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05942625 = queryNorm
            0.78064346 = fieldWeight in 6501, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.8275905 = idf(docFreq=353, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6501)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Citation is a worldwide phenomenon. It needs to be considered in the international context. This study examines 4 common modalities (physical accessibility, cognitive accessibility, perceived quality, and perceived importance) underlying the complex citation practice by translation analysis. In an analysis of the Chinese literature in library and information science, it was found that there is a very strong correlation between languages cited and languages translated (r=0.978). The overall national citation pattern of foreign publications is highly correlated with its translation pattern (r=0.897). There is approximately 57% overlap between the group of the 60 most heavily cited authors and the group of the 60 most frequently translated authors. Highly cited publications are more likely to be translated (54.5 vs. 13.8%)

0.044595536 = product of:
  0.08919107 = sum of:
    0.08919107 = product of:
      0.17838214 = sum of:
        0.17838214 = weight(_text_:translation in 7225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17838214 = score(doc=7225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34631187 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8275905 = idf(docFreq=353, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05942625 = queryNorm
            0.51509106 = fieldWeight in 7225, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.8275905 = idf(docFreq=353, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There exists a direct linear relation between journal production and impact factor. The more articles a 'normal' journal publishes, the larger its impact factor. Review journals and translation journals are clear exceptions to this rule. The field of mathematics and chemistry seem to be large scale exceptions

0.03941726 = product of:
  0.07883452 = sum of:
    0.07883452 = product of:
      0.15766904 = sum of:
        0.15766904 = weight(_text_:translation in 1090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15766904 = score(doc=1090,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.34631187 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8275905 = idf(docFreq=353, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05942625 = queryNorm
            0.4552805 = fieldWeight in 1090, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.8275905 = idf(docFreq=353, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1090)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.03941726 = product of:
  0.07883452 = sum of:
    0.07883452 = product of:
      0.15766904 = sum of:
        0.15766904 = weight(_text_:translation in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15766904 = score(doc=917,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.34631187 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8275905 = idf(docFreq=353, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05942625 = queryNorm
            0.4552805 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.8275905 = idf(docFreq=353, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Coauthorship prediction applies predictive analytics to bibliographic data to predict authors who are highly likely to be coauthors. In this study, we propose an approach for coauthorship prediction based on bibliographic network embedding through a graph-based bibliographic data model that can be used to model common bibliographic data, including papers, terms, sources, authors, departments, research interests, universities, and countries. A real-world dataset released by AMiner that includes more than 2 million papers, 8 million citations, and 1.7 million authors were integrated into a large bibliographic network using the proposed bibliographic data model. Translation-based methods were applied to the entities and relationships to generate their low-dimensional embeddings while preserving their connectivity information in the original bibliographic network. We applied machine learning algorithms to embeddings that represent the coauthorship relationships of the two authors and achieved high prediction results. The reference model, which is the combination of a network embedding size of 100, the most basic translation-based method, and a gradient boosting method achieved an F1 score of 0.9 and even higher scores are obtainable with different embedding sizes and more advanced embedding methods. Thus, the strengths of the proposed approach lie in its customizable components under a unified framework.

0.03709638 = product of:
  0.07419276 = sum of:
    0.07419276 = product of:
      0.22257827 = sum of:
        0.22257827 = weight(_text_:objects in 203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22257827 = score(doc=203,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.31585476 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05942625 = queryNorm
            0.7046855 = fieldWeight in 203, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=203)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Changes in the topography of the Web can be expressed in at least four ways: (1) more sites on more servers in more places, (2) more pages and objects added to existing sites and pages, (3) changes in traffic, and (4) modifications to existing text, graphic, and other Web objects. This article does not address the first three factors (more sites, more pages, more traffic) in the growth of the Web. It focuses instead on changes to an existing set of Web documents. The article documents changes to an aging set of Web pages, first identified and "collected" in December 1996 and followed weekly thereafter. Results are reported through February 2001. The article addresses two related phenomena: (1) the life cycle of Web objects, and (2) changes to Web objects. These data reaffirm that the half-life of a Web page is approximately 2 years. There is variation among Web pages by top-level domain and by page type (navigation, content). Web page content appears to stabilize over time; aging pages change less often than once they did

0.032205746 = product of:
  0.06441149 = sum of:
    0.06441149 = product of:
      0.12882298 = sum of:
        0.12882298 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12882298 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2081006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05942625 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.032205746 = product of:
  0.06441149 = sum of:
    0.06441149 = product of:
      0.12882298 = sum of:
        0.12882298 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12882298 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2081006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05942625 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.032205746 = product of:
  0.06441149 = sum of:
    0.06441149 = product of:
      0.12882298 = sum of:
        0.12882298 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12882298 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2081006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05942625 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.030625345 = sum of:
  0.01854819 = product of:
    0.055644568 = sum of:
      0.055644568 = weight(_text_:objects in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055644568 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31585476 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05942625 = queryNorm
          0.17617138 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.012077155 = product of:
    0.02415431 = sum of:
      0.02415431 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02415431 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2081006 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05942625 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.028466126 = product of:
  0.056932252 = sum of:
    0.056932252 = product of:
      0.113864504 = sum of:
        0.113864504 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.113864504 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2081006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05942625 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:22:35

0.028466126 = product of:
  0.056932252 = sum of:
    0.056932252 = product of:
      0.113864504 = sum of:
        0.113864504 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.113864504 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2081006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05942625 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.028180027 = product of:
  0.056360055 = sum of:
    0.056360055 = product of:
      0.11272011 = sum of:
        0.11272011 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11272011 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2081006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05942625 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

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

0.028180027 = product of:
  0.056360055 = sum of:
    0.056360055 = product of:
      0.11272011 = sum of:
        0.11272011 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11272011 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2081006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05942625 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:29

0.028180027 = product of:
  0.056360055 = sum of:
    0.056360055 = product of:
      0.11272011 = sum of:
        0.11272011 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11272011 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2081006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05942625 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:55

0.027872209 = product of:
  0.055744417 = sum of:
    0.055744417 = product of:
      0.111488834 = sum of:
        0.111488834 = weight(_text_:translation in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.111488834 = score(doc=284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34631187 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8275905 = idf(docFreq=353, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05942625 = queryNorm
            0.3219319 = fieldWeight in 284, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.8275905 = idf(docFreq=353, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=284)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article analyzes the effects of publication language on the international scientific visibility of Russia using the Web of Science (WoS). Like other developing and transition countries, it is subject to a growing pressure to "internationalize" its scientific activities, which primarily means a shift to English as a language of scientific communication. But to what extent does the transition to English improve the impact of research? The case of Russia is of interest in this respect as the existence of many combinations of national journals and languages of publications (namely, Russian and English, including translated journals) provide a kind of natural I experiment to test the effects of language and publisher's country on the international visibility of research through citations as well as on the referencing practices of authors. Our analysis points to the conclusion that the production of original English-language papers in foreign journals is a more efficient strategy of internationalization than the mere translation of domestic journals. If the objective of a country is to maximize the international visibility of its scientific work, then the efforts should go into the promotion of publication in reputed English-language journals to profit from the added effect provided by the Matthew effect of these venues.

0.02415431 = product of:
  0.04830862 = sum of:
    0.04830862 = product of:
      0.09661724 = sum of:
        0.09661724 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09661724 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2081006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05942625 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2007 17:02:22

0.02415431 = product of:
  0.04830862 = sum of:
    0.04830862 = product of:
      0.09661724 = sum of:
        0.09661724 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09661724 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2081006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05942625 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

18. 3.2014 19:13:22

0.021859251 = product of:
  0.043718502 = sum of:
    0.043718502 = product of:
      0.1311555 = sum of:
        0.1311555 = weight(_text_:objects in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1311555 = score(doc=1091,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.31585476 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05942625 = queryNorm
            0.41523993 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The number of research studies on social tagging has increased rapidly in the past years, but few of them highlight the characteristics and research trends in social tagging. A set of 862 academic documents relating to social tagging and published from 2005 to 2011 was thus examined using bibliometric analysis as well as the social network analysis technique. The results show that social tagging, as a research area, develops rapidly and attracts an increasing number of new entrants. There are no key authors, publication sources, or research groups that dominate the research domain of social tagging. Research on social tagging appears to focus mainly on the following three aspects: (a) components and functions of social tagging (e.g., tags, tagging objects, and tagging network), (b) taggers' behaviors and interface design, and (c) tags' organization and usage in social tagging. The trend suggest that more researchers turn to the latter two integrated with human computer interface and information retrieval, although the first aspect is the fundamental one in social tagging. Also, more studies relating to social tagging pay attention to multimedia tagging objects and not only text tagging. Previous research on social tagging was limited to a few subject domains such as information science and computer science. As an interdisciplinary research area, social tagging is anticipated to attract more researchers from different disciplines. More practical applications, especially in high-tech companies, is an encouraging research trend in social tagging.

0.021417607 = product of:
  0.042835213 = sum of:
    0.042835213 = product of:
      0.12850563 = sum of:
        0.12850563 = weight(_text_:objects in 584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12850563 = score(doc=584,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.31585476 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05942625 = queryNorm
            0.4068504 = fieldWeight in 584, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=584)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The present two-part article introduces matrix comparison as a formal means of evaluation in informetric studies such as cocitation analysis. In this first part, the motivation behind introducing matrix comparison to informetric studies, as well as two important issues influencing such comparisons, are introduced and discussed. The motivation is spurred by the recent debate on choice of proximity measures and their potential influence upon clustering and ordination results. The two important issues discussed here are matrix generation and the composition of proximity measures. The approach to matrix generation is demonstrated for the same data set, i.e., how data is represented and transformed in a matrix, evidently determines the behavior of proximity measures. Two different matrix generation approaches, in all probability, will lead to different proximity rankings of objects, which further lead to different ordination and clustering results for the same set of objects. Further, a resemblance in the composition of formulas indicates whether two proximity measures may produce similar ordination and clustering results. However, as shown in the case of the angular correlation and cosine measures, a small deviation in otherwise similar formulas can lead to different rankings depending on the contour of the data matrix transformed. Eventually, the behavior of proximity measures, that is whether they produce similar rankings of objects, is more or less data-specific. Consequently, the authors recommend the use of empirical matrix comparison techniques for individual studies to investigate the degree of resemblance between proximity measures or their ordination results. In part two of the article, the authors introduce and demonstrate two related statistical matrix comparison techniques the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis, respectively. These techniques can compare and evaluate the degree of monotonicity between different proximity measures or their ordination results. As such, the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis can be used as statistical validation tools in informetric studies and thus help choosing suitable proximity measures.