Search (169 results, page 1 of 9)

0.3149137 = product of:
  0.7347986 = sum of:
    0.24493288 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24493288 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3268572 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = 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)
    0.24493288 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24493288 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3268572 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = 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)
    0.24493288 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24493288 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3268572 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = 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)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Content

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

0.0152243385 = product of:
  0.05328518 = sum of:
    0.040226504 = weight(_text_:computer in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040226504 = score(doc=2352,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.28550854 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
    0.013058676 = product of:
      0.026117353 = sum of:
        0.026117353 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026117353 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13500787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038553525 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.

0.014229638 = product of:
  0.04980373 = sum of:
    0.03413332 = weight(_text_:computer in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03413332 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.24226204 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
    0.015670411 = product of:
      0.031340823 = sum of:
        0.031340823 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031340823 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13500787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038553525 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Literature citation analysis plays a very important role in bibliometrics and scientometrics, such as the Science Citation Index (SCI) impact factor, h-index. Existing citation analysis methods assume that all citations in a paper are equally important, and they simply count the number of citations. Here we argue that the citations in a paper are not equally important and some citations are more important than the others. We use a strength value to assess the importance of each citation and propose to use the regression method with a few useful features for automatically estimating the strength value of each citation. Evaluation results on a manually labeled data set in the computer science field show that the estimated values can achieve good correlation with human-labeled values. We further apply the estimated citation strength values for evaluating paper influence and author influence, and the preliminary evaluation results demonstrate the usefulness of the citation strength values.

Date

22. 8.2014 17:12:35

0.011858032 = product of:
  0.04150311 = sum of:
    0.028444434 = weight(_text_:computer in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028444434 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.013058676 = product of:
      0.026117353 = sum of:
        0.026117353 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026117353 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13500787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038553525 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

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

0.011858032 = product of:
  0.04150311 = sum of:
    0.028444434 = weight(_text_:computer in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028444434 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.013058676 = product of:
      0.026117353 = sum of:
        0.026117353 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026117353 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13500787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038553525 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06

0.009752377 = product of:
  0.06826664 = sum of:
    0.06826664 = weight(_text_:computer in 4765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06826664 = score(doc=4765,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.48452407 = fieldWeight in 4765, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4765)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Co-authorship in publications within a discipline uncovers interesting properties of the analyzed field. We represent collaboration in academic papers of computer science in terms of differently grained networks, namely affiliation and collaboration networks. We also build those sub-networks that emerge from either conference or journal co-authorship only. We take advantage of the network science paraphernalia to take a picture of computer science collaboration including all papers published in the field since 1936. Furthermore, we observe how collaboration in computer science evolved over time since 1960. We investigate bibliometric properties such as size of the discipline, productivity of scholars, and collaboration level in papers, as well as global network properties such as reachability and average separation distance among scholars, distribution of the number of scholar collaborators, network resilience and dependence on star collaborators, network clustering, and network assortativity by number of collaborators.

0.009752377 = product of:
  0.06826664 = sum of:
    0.06826664 = weight(_text_:computer in 1112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06826664 = score(doc=1112,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.48452407 = fieldWeight in 1112, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1112)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In this article, we propose a measure to assess scientific impact that discounts self-citations and does not require any prior knowledge of their distribution among publications. This index can be applied to both researchers and journals. In particular, we show that it fills the gap of the h-index and similar measures that do not take into account the effect of self-citations for authors or journals impact evaluation. We provide 2 real-world examples: First, we evaluate the research impact of the most productive scholars in computer science (according to DBLP Computer Science Bibliography, Universität Trier, Trier, Germany); then we revisit the impact of the journals ranked in the Computer Science Applications section of the SCImago Journal & Country Rank ranking service (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, University of Granada, Extremadura, Madrid, Spain). We observe how self-citations, in many cases, affect the rankings obtained according to different measures (including h-index and ch-index), and show how the proposed measure mitigates this effect.

Object

DBLP Computer Science Bibliography

0.008445807 = product of:
  0.059120644 = sum of:
    0.059120644 = weight(_text_:computer in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059120644 = score(doc=5766,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.41961014 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Domain visualization is one of the new research fronts resulted from the proliferation of information visualization, aiming to reveal the essence of a knowledge domain. Information visualization plays an integral role in modeling and representing intellectual structures associated with scientific disciplines. In this article, the domain of computer graphics is visualized based on author cocitation patterns derived from an 18-year span of the prestigious IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (1982-1999). This domain visualization utilizes a series of visualization and animation techniques, including author cocitation maps, citation time lines, animation of a highdimensional specialty space, and institutional profiles. This approach not only augments traditional domain analysis and the understanding of scientific disciplines, but also produces a persistent and shared knowledge space for researchers to keep track the development of knowledge more effectively. The results of the domain visualization are discussed and triangulated in a broader context of the computer graphics field

0.008045301 = product of:
  0.056317106 = sum of:
    0.056317106 = weight(_text_:computer in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056317106 = score(doc=1259,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.39971197 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The increasing availability of digital libraries with cross-citation data on the Internet enables new studies in bibliometrics. The paper focuses on the list of 10.000 top-cited authors in computer science available as part of CiteSeer. Using data from several consecutive lists a model of how authors accrue citations with time is constructed. By comparing the rate at which individual authors accrue citations with the average rate, predictions are made of how their ranking in the list will change in the future.

0.0070381723 = product of:
  0.049267203 = sum of:
    0.049267203 = weight(_text_:computer in 3458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049267203 = score(doc=3458,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.34967512 = fieldWeight in 3458, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3458)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Continued development of the Internet requires the development of efficient, easy-to-use search engines. Ideally, such development should call upon knowledge and skills from a variety of disciplines, including computer science, information science, psychology, and ergonomics. The current study is intended to determine whether search engines shows a pattern of interdisciplinarity. 2 disciplines were selected as the focus for the study: computer science, and library/information science. A citation analysis was conducted to measure levels of interdisciplinary research and publishing in Internet search engine design and development. The results show a higher level of interdisciplinarity among library and information scientists than among computer scientists or among any of those categorized as 'other'. This is reflected both in the types of journals in which the authors publish, and in the references they cite to support their work. However, almost no authors published articles or cited references in fields such as cognitive science, ergonomics, or psychology. The results of this study are analyzed in terms of the writings of Patrick Wilson, Bruno Latour, Pierre Bordieu, Fritz Ringer, and Thomas Pinelli, focusing on cognitive authority within a profession, interaction between disciplines, and information-gathering habits of professionals. Suggestions for further research are given

0.006895972 = product of:
  0.0482718 = sum of:
    0.0482718 = weight(_text_:computer in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0482718 = score(doc=1347,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.34261024 = fieldWeight in 1347, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1347)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The main fields of research in Library Science and Documentation are identified by quantifying the frequency of appearance and the analysis of co-occurrence of the descriptors assigned to 11,273 indexed works in the Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA) database for the 2004-2005 period. The analysis made has enabled three major core research areas to be identified: World Wide Web, Libraries and Education. There are a further 12 areas of research with specific development, one connected with the library sphere and another 11 connected with the World Wide Web and Internet: Networks, Computer Security, Information technologies, Electronic Resources, Electronic Publications, Bibliometrics, Electronic Commerce, Computer applications, Medicine, Searches and Online Information retrieval.

0.006895972 = product of:
  0.0482718 = sum of:
    0.0482718 = weight(_text_:computer in 2347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0482718 = score(doc=2347,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.34261024 = fieldWeight in 2347, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2347)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The question of which type of computer science (CS) publication-conference or journal-is likely to result in more citations for a published paper is addressed. A series of data sets are examined and joined in order to analyze the citations of over 195,000 conference papers and 108,000 journal papers. Two means of evaluating the citations of journals and conferences are explored: h5 and average citations per paper; it was found that h5 has certain biases that make it a difficult measure to use (despite it being the main measure used by Google Scholar). Results from the analysis show that CS, as a discipline, values conferences as a publication venue more highly than any other academic field of study. The analysis also shows that a small number of elite CS conferences have the highest average paper citation rate of any publication type, although overall, citation rates in conferences are no higher than in journals. It is also shown that the length of a paper is correlated with citation rate.

0.006895972 = product of:
  0.0482718 = sum of:
    0.0482718 = weight(_text_:computer in 2735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0482718 = score(doc=2735,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.34261024 = fieldWeight in 2735, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2735)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

A substantial amount of research has focused on the persistence or availability of Web citations. The present study analyzes Web citation distributions. Web citations are defined as the mentions of the URLs of Web pages (Web resources) as references in academic papers. The present paper primarily focuses on the analysis of the URLs of Web citations and uses three sets of data, namely, Set 1 from the Humanities and Social Science Index in China (CSSCI, 1998-2009), Set 2 from the publications of two international computer science societies, Communications of the ACM and IEEE Computer (1995-1999), and Set 3 from the medical science database, MEDLINE, of the National Library of Medicine (1994-2006). Web citation distributions are investigated based on Web site types, Web page types, URL frequencies, URL depths, URL lengths, and year of article publication. Results show significant differences in the Web citation distributions among the three data sets. However, when the URLs of Web citations with the same hostnames are aggregated, the distributions in the three data sets are consistent with the power law (the Lotka function).

0.006895972 = product of:
  0.0482718 = sum of:
    0.0482718 = weight(_text_:computer in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0482718 = score(doc=2742,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.34261024 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This article describes the results of our analysis of the data from the CiteSeer digital library. First, we examined the data from the point of view of source top-level Internet domains from which the data were collected. Second, we measured country shares in publications indexed by CiteSeer and compared them to those based on mainstream bibliographic data from the Web of Science and Scopus. And third, we concentrated on analyzing publications and their citations aggregated by countries. This way, we generated rankings of the most influential countries in computer science using several non-recursive as well as recursive methods such as citation counts or PageRank. We conclude that even if East Asian countries are underrepresented in CiteSeer, its data may well be used along with other conventional bibliographic databases for comparing the computer science research productivity and performance of countries.

0.006501585 = product of:
  0.045511093 = sum of:
    0.045511093 = weight(_text_:computer in 2908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045511093 = score(doc=2908,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.32301605 = fieldWeight in 2908, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2908)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web phenomena, is a field encompassing contributions from information science, computer science, and statistical physics. Its methodology draws especially from bibliometrics. This special issue presents contributions that both push for ward the field and illustrate a wide range of webometric approaches.

0.006501585 = product of:
  0.045511093 = sum of:
    0.045511093 = weight(_text_:computer in 2154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045511093 = score(doc=2154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.32301605 = fieldWeight in 2154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2154)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

We use a social network approach to examine how work and friendship ties in a university research group were associated with the kinds of media used for different kind of information exchange. The use of e-mail, unscheduled face-to-face encounters, and scheduled face-to-face meetings predominated for the exchange of 6 kinds of information: receiving work, giving work, collaborative writing, computer programming, sociability and major emotional support. Few pairs used synchronous desktop videoconferencing or the telephone

0.006501585 = product of:
  0.045511093 = sum of:
    0.045511093 = weight(_text_:computer in 1063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045511093 = score(doc=1063,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.32301605 = fieldWeight in 1063, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1063)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

The volume of scientific literature typically far exceeds the ability of scientists to identify and utilize all relevant information in their research. Improvements to the accessibility of scientific literature, allowing scientists to locate more relevant research within a given time, have the potential to dramatically improve communication and progress in science. With the web, scientists now have very convenient access to an increasing amount of literature that previously required trips to the library, inter-library loan delays, or substantial effort in locating the source. Evidence shows that usage increases when access is more convenient, and maximizing the usage of the scientific record benefits all of society. Although availability varies greatly by discipline, over a million research articles are freely available on the web. Some journals and conferences provide free access online, others allow authors to post articles on the web, and others allow authors to purchase the right to post their articles on the web. In this article we investigate the impact of free online availability by analyzing citation rates. We do not discuss methods of creating free online availability, such as time-delayed release or publication/membership/conference charges. Online availability of an article may not be expected to greatly improve access and impact by itself. For example, efficient means of locating articles via web search engines or specialized search services is required, and a substantial percentage of the literature needs to be indexed by these search services before it is worthwhile for many scientists to use them. Computer science is a forerunner in web availability -- a substantial percentage of the literature is online and available through search engines such as Google (google.com), or specialized services such as ResearchIndex (researchindex.org). Even so, the greatest impact of the online availability of computer science literature is likely yet to come, because comprehensive search services and more powerful search methods have only become available recently. We analyzed 119,924 conference articles in computer science and related disciplines, obtained from DBLP (dblp.uni-trier.de). In computer science, conference articles are typically formal publications and are often more prestigious than journal articles, with acceptance rates at some conferences below 10%. Citation counts and online availability were estimated using ResearchIndex. The analysis excludes self-citations, where a citation is considered to be a self-citation if one or more of the citing and cited authors match.

0.0059696804 = product of:
  0.041787762 = sum of:
    0.041787762 = product of:
      0.083575524 = sum of:
        0.083575524 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083575524 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13500787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038553525 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

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

0.0059696804 = product of:
  0.041787762 = sum of:
    0.041787762 = product of:
      0.083575524 = sum of:
        0.083575524 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083575524 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13500787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038553525 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.0059696804 = product of:
  0.041787762 = sum of:
    0.041787762 = product of:
      0.083575524 = sum of:
        0.083575524 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083575524 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13500787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038553525 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

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