Search (189 results, page 1 of 10)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Mukherjee, B.: Do open-access journals in library and information science have any scholarly impact? : a bibliometric study of selected open-access journals using Google Scholar (2009) 0.10 
    0.09746517 = product of:
  0.19493034 = sum of:
    0.10430394 = weight(_text_:open in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10430394 = score(doc=2745,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.49753815 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
    0.090626396 = sum of:
      0.059089568 = weight(_text_:access in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059089568 = score(doc=2745,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.37448242 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
      0.03153683 = weight(_text_:22 in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03153683 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2745, 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=2745)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Using 17 fully open-access journals published uninterruptedly during 2000 to 2004 in the field of library and information science, the present study investigates the impact of these open-access journals in terms of quantity of articles published, subject distribution of the articles, synchronous and diachronous impact factor, immediacy index, and journals' and authors' self-citation. The results indicate that during this 5-year publication period, there are as many as 1,636 articles published by these journals. At the same time, the articles have received a total of 8,591 Web citations during a 7-year citation period. Eight of 17 journals have received more than 100 citations. First Monday received the highest number of citations; however, the average number of citations per article was the highest in D-Lib Magazine. The value of the synchronous impact factor varies from 0.6989 to 1.0014 during 2002 to 2005, and the diachronous impact factor varies from 1.472 to 2.487 during 2000 to 2004. The range of the immediacy index varies between 0.0714 and 1.395. D-Lib Magazine has an immediacy index value above 0.5 in all the years whereas the immediacy index value varies from year to year for the other journals. When the citations of sample articles were analyzed according to source, it was found that 40.32% of the citations came from full-text articles, followed by 33.35% from journal articles. The percentage of journals' self-citation was only 6.04%.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:54:59
  2. Nelson, G.M.; Eggett, D.L.: Citations, mandates, and money : author motivations to publish in chemistry hybrid open access journals (2017) 0.10 
    0.09514919 = product of:
  0.19029838 = sum of:
    0.1445278 = weight(_text_:open in 3838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1445278 = score(doc=3838,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.68940914 = fieldWeight in 3838, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3838)
    0.04577058 = product of:
      0.09154116 = sum of:
        0.09154116 = weight(_text_:access in 3838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09154116 = score(doc=3838,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.58014566 = fieldWeight in 3838, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3838)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Hybrid open access refers to articles freely accessible via the Internet but which originate from an academic journal that provides most of its content via subscription. The effect of hybrid open access on citation counts and author behavior in the field of chemistry is something that has not been widely studied. We compared 814 open access articles and 27,621 subscription access articles published from 2006 through 2011 in American Chemical Society journals. As expected, the 2 comparison groups are not equal in all respects. Cumulative citation data were analyzed from years 2-5 following an article's publication date. A citation advantage for open access articles was correlated with the journal impact factor (IF) in low and medium IF journals, but not in high IF journals. Open access articles have a 24% higher mean citation rate than their subscription counterparts in low IF journals (confidence limits 8-42%, p = .0022) and similarly, a 26% higher mean citation rate in medium IF journals (confidence limits 14-40%, p < .001). Open access articles in high IF journals had no significant difference compared to subscription access articles (13% lower mean citation rate, confidence limits -27-3%, p = .10). These results are correlative, not causative, and may not be completely due to an open access effect. Authors of the open access articles were also surveyed to determine why they chose a hybrid open access option, paid the required article processing charge, and whether they believed it was money well spent. Authors primarily chose open access because of funding mandates; however, most considered the money well spent because open access increases information access to the scientific community and the general public, and potentially increases citations to their scholarship.
  3. Peterson, G.M.: Characteristics of retracted open access biomedical literature : a bibliographic analysis (2013) 0.10 
    0.095038794 = product of:
  0.19007759 = sum of:
    0.13993843 = weight(_text_:open in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13993843 = score(doc=1138,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.66751754 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
    0.05013916 = product of:
      0.10027832 = sum of:
        0.10027832 = weight(_text_:access in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10027832 = score(doc=1138,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.6355177 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The author analyzes retracted biomedical literature to determine if open access and fee-for-access works differ in terms of the practice and effectiveness of retraction. Citation and content analysis were applied to articles grouped by accessibility (libre, gratis, and fee for access) for various bibliometric attributes. Open access literature does not differ from fee-for-access literature in terms of impact factor, detection of error, or change in postretraction citation rates. Literature found in the PubMed Central Open Access subset provides detailed information about the nature of the anomaly more often than less accessible works. Open access literature appears to be of similar reliability and integrity as the population of biomedical literature in general, with the added value of being more forthcoming about the nature of errors when they are identified.
  4. Davis, P.M.: Author-choice open-access publishing in the biological and medical literature : a citation analysis (2009) 0.09 
    0.09369411 = product of:
  0.18738823 = sum of:
    0.14602552 = weight(_text_:open in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14602552 = score(doc=2622,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.6965534 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
    0.0413627 = product of:
      0.0827254 = sum of:
        0.0827254 = weight(_text_:access in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0827254 = score(doc=2622,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.5242754 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In this article, we analyze the citations to articles published in 11 biological and medical journals from 2003 to 2007 that employ author-choice open-access models. Controlling for known explanatory predictors of citations, only 2 of the 11 journals show positive and significant open-access effects. Analyzing all journals together, we report a small but significant increase in article citations of 17%. In addition, there is strong evidence to suggest that the open-access advantage is declining by about 7% per year, from 32% in 2004 to 11% in 2007.
  5. Yan, E.; Li, K.: Which domains do open-access journals do best in? : a 5-year longitudinal study (2018) 0.09 
    0.087230064 = product of:
  0.17446013 = sum of:
    0.12774572 = weight(_text_:open in 4257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12774572 = score(doc=4257,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.6093573 = fieldWeight in 4257, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4257)
    0.046714406 = product of:
      0.09342881 = sum of:
        0.09342881 = weight(_text_:access in 4257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09342881 = score(doc=4257,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.5921087 = fieldWeight in 4257, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4257)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Although researchers have begun to investigate the difference in scientific impact between closed-access and open-access journals, studies that focus specifically on dynamic and disciplinary differences remain scarce. This study serves to fill this gap by using a large longitudinal dataset to examine these differences. Using CiteScore as a proxy for journal scientific impact, we employ a series of statistical tests to identify the quartile categories and disciplinary areas in which impact trends differ notably between closed- and open-access journals. We find that closed-access journals have a noticeable advantage in social sciences (for example, business and economics), whereas open-access journals perform well in medical and healthcare domains (for example, health profession and nursing). Moreover, we find that after controlling for a journal's rank and disciplinary differences, there are statistically more closed-access journals in the top 10%, Quartile 1, and Quartile 2 categories as measured by CiteScore; in contrast, more open-access journals in Quartile 4 gained scientific impact from 2011 to 2015. Considering dynamic and disciplinary trends in tandem, we find that more closed-access journals in Social Sciences gained in impact, whereas in biochemistry and medicine, more open-access journals experienced such gains.
  6. Tüür-Fröhlich, T.: Closed vs. Open Access : Szientometrische Untersuchung dreier sozialwissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften aus der Genderperspektive (2011) 0.08 
    0.08391226 = product of:
  0.16782452 = sum of:
    0.12646182 = weight(_text_:open in 4505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12646182 = score(doc=4505,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.603233 = fieldWeight in 4505, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4505)
    0.0413627 = product of:
      0.0827254 = sum of:
        0.0827254 = weight(_text_:access in 4505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0827254 = score(doc=4505,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.5242754 = fieldWeight in 4505, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4505)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Der Artikel ist Teil einer größeren Untersuchung zu den Potentialen von Open Access Publishing zur Erhöhung der Publikations- und damit Karrierechancen von Sozialwissenschaftlerinnen. Es werden drei inhaltlich und methodisch ähnliche sozialwissenschaftliche Zeitschriften verglichen: das Open-Access-Journal "Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung" ("FQS") und die zwei Closed-Access-/Hybridjournale "Zeitschrift für qualitative Forschung" und "Sozialer Sinn". Erhoben wird (a) der jeweilige Frauenanteil unter Redaktions- und Beiratsmitgliedern dieser drei Zeitschriften (N=184 insgesamt), (b) aufwändig rekonstruiert und analysiert wird die Genderstruktur der Autorenschaften aller in den drei Zeitschriften zwischen 2000 und 2008 veröffentlichten Beiträge (Totalerhebung, N=1557 insgesamt).
  7. Sotudeh, H.; Horri, A.: ¬The citation performance of open access journals : a disciplinary investigation of citation distribution models (2007) 0.08 
    0.080309235 = product of:
  0.16061847 = sum of:
    0.12516473 = weight(_text_:open in 4479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12516473 = score(doc=4479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.5970458 = fieldWeight in 4479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4479)
    0.03545374 = product of:
      0.07090748 = sum of:
        0.07090748 = weight(_text_:access in 4479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07090748 = score(doc=4479,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.4493789 = fieldWeight in 4479, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
  8. Herb, U.: Relevanz von Impact-Maßen für Open Access (2013) 0.08 
    0.080309235 = product of:
  0.16061847 = sum of:
    0.12516473 = weight(_text_:open in 926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12516473 = score(doc=926,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.5970458 = fieldWeight in 926, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=926)
    0.03545374 = product of:
      0.07090748 = sum of:
        0.07090748 = weight(_text_:access in 926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07090748 = score(doc=926,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.4493789 = fieldWeight in 926, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=926)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Die Anwendung bibliometrischer Verfahren ist sowohl für Wissenschaftler als auch für Organisationen höchst relevant: Individuelle Karriere und Evaluierung von Fachbereichen sind abhängig von der Bewertung des Publikationsverhaltens. Der Beitrag eruiert, warum Open-Access-Publikationen in solchen Bewertungen benachteiligt werden, wie die in der Evaluierung üblicherweise herangezogenen bibliometrischen Verfahren (v.a. der Journal impact Factor JIF) funktionieren, welche Alternativen zu diesen zitationsbasierten Verfahren existieren und zu welchen Ergebnissen sie kommen. Unter der Annahme, dass Open-Access-Publikationen nicht qua geringer Qualität geringere Wertschätzung in der Evaluierung und bei Berufungskommissionen erfahren, sondern aufgrund methodischer Eigenheiten der Evaluierungsinstrumente, wird diskutiert, inwiefern alternative Qualitätsmessungsverfahren sich vorteilhaft auf die Akzeptanz von Open Access auswirken können.
  9. Teplitskiy, M.; Lu, G.; Duede, E.: Amplifying the impact of open access : Wikipedia and the diffusion of science (2017) 0.08 
    0.080309235 = product of:
  0.16061847 = sum of:
    0.12516473 = weight(_text_:open in 3782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12516473 = score(doc=3782,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.5970458 = fieldWeight in 3782, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3782)
    0.03545374 = product of:
      0.07090748 = sum of:
        0.07090748 = weight(_text_:access in 3782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07090748 = score(doc=3782,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.4493789 = fieldWeight in 3782, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3782)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    With the rise of Wikipedia as a first-stop source for scientific information, it is important to understand whether Wikipedia draws upon the research that scientists value most. Here we identify the 250 most heavily used journals in each of 26 research fields (4,721 journals, 19.4M articles) indexed by the Scopus database, and test whether topic, academic status, and accessibility make articles from these journals more or less likely to be referenced on Wikipedia. We find that a journal's academic status (impact factor) and accessibility (open access policy) both strongly increase the probability of it being referenced on Wikipedia. Controlling for field and impact factor, the odds that an open access journal is referenced on the English Wikipedia are 47% higher compared to paywall journals. These findings provide evidence is that a major consequence of open access policies is to significantly amplify the diffusion of science, through an intermediary like Wikipedia, to a broad audience.
  10. Coleman, A.: Self-archiving and the copyright transfer agreements of ISI-ranked library and information science journals : analytic advantages (2007) 0.08 
    0.07864525 = product of:
  0.1572905 = sum of:
    0.12774572 = weight(_text_:open in 72) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12774572 = score(doc=72,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.6093573 = fieldWeight in 72, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=72)
    0.029544784 = product of:
      0.059089568 = sum of:
        0.059089568 = weight(_text_:access in 72) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059089568 = score(doc=72,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.37448242 = fieldWeight in 72, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=72)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    A study of Thomson-Scientific ISI ranked Library and Information Science (LIS) journals (n=52) is reported. The study examined the stances of publishers as expressed in the Copyright Transfer Agreements (CTAs) of the journals toward self-archiving, the practice of depositing digital copies of one's works in an Open Archives Initiative (OAI)-compliant open access repository. Sixty-two percent (32) do not make their CTAs available on the open Web; 38% (20) do. Of the 38% that do make CTAs available, two are open access journals. Of the 62% that do not have a publicly available CTA, 40% are silent about self-archiving. Even among the 20 journal CTAs publicly available there is a high level of ambiguity. Closer examination augmented by publisher policy documents on copyright, self-archiving, and instructions to authors reveals that only five, 10% of the ISI-ranked LIS journals in the study, actually prohibit self-archiving by publisher rule. Copyright is a moving target, but publishers appear to be acknowledging that copyright and open access can co-exist in scholarly journal publishing. The ambivalence of LIS journal publishers provides unique opportunities to members of the community. Authors can self-archive in open access archives. A societyled, global scholarly communication consortium can engage in the strategic building of the LIS information commons. Aggregating OAI-compliant archives and developing disciplinary-specific library services for an LIS commons has the potential to increase the field's research impact and visibility. It may also ameliorate its own scholarly communication and publishing systems and serve as a model for others.
  11. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.08 
    0.07823196 = product of:
  0.15646392 = sum of:
    0.07375403 = weight(_text_:open in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07375403 = score(doc=586,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.3518126 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.08270989 = sum of:
      0.051173065 = weight(_text_:access in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.051173065 = score(doc=586,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.3243113 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.03153683 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03153683 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.
  12. Nichols, D.M.; Twidale, M.B.: Metrics for openness (2017) 0.08 
    0.07571627 = product of:
  0.15143254 = sum of:
    0.118006445 = weight(_text_:open in 3530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.118006445 = score(doc=3530,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.5629002 = fieldWeight in 3530, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3530)
    0.033426106 = product of:
      0.06685221 = sum of:
        0.06685221 = weight(_text_:access in 3530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06685221 = score(doc=3530,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.4236785 = fieldWeight in 3530, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3530)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The characterization of scholarly communication is dominated by citation-based measures. In this paper we propose several metrics to describe different facets of open access and open research. We discuss measures to represent the public availability of articles along with their archival location, licenses, access costs, and supporting information. Calculations illustrating these new metrics are presented using the authors' publications. We argue that explicit measurement of openness is necessary for a holistic description of research outputs.
  13. Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013) 0.07 
    0.073939405 = product of:
  0.29575762 = sum of:
    0.29575762 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29575762 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39468166 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
  14. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.07 
    0.073536746 = product of:
  0.14707349 = sum of:
    0.07375403 = weight(_text_:open in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07375403 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.3518126 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.073319465 = sum of:
      0.041782632 = weight(_text_:access in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041782632 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.26479906 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
      0.03153683 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03153683 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = 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(2/4)
    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.
  15. Zhang, Y.: ¬The effect of open access on citation impact : a comparison study based on Web citation analysis (2006) 0.06 
    0.059937328 = product of:
  0.119874656 = sum of:
    0.09032987 = weight(_text_:open in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09032987 = score(doc=5071,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.43088073 = fieldWeight in 5071, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5071)
    0.029544784 = product of:
      0.059089568 = sum of:
        0.059089568 = weight(_text_:access in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059089568 = score(doc=5071,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.37448242 = fieldWeight in 5071, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5071)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The academic impact advantage of Open Access (OA) is a prominent topic of debate in the library and publishing communities. Web citations have been proposed as comparable to, even replacements for, bibliographic citations in assessing the academic impact of journals. In our study, we compare Web citations to articles in an OA journal, the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC), and a traditional access journal, New Media & Society (NMS), in the communication discipline. Web citation counts for JCMC are significantly higher than those for NMS. Furthermore, JCMC receives significantly higher Web citations from the formal scholarly publications posted on the Web than NMS does. The types of Web citations for journal articles were also examined. In the Web context, the impact of a journal can be assessed using more than one type of source: citations from scholarly articles, teaching materials and non-authoritative documents. The OA journal has higher percentages of citations from the third type, which suggests that, in addition to the research community, the impact advantage of open access is also detectable among ordinary users participating in Web-based academic communication. Moreover, our study also proves that the OA journal has impact advantage in developing countries. Compared with NMS, JCMC has more Web citations from developing countries.
  16. Moed, H.F.: ¬The effect of "open access" on citation impact : an analysis of ArXiv's condensed matter section (2007) 0.06 
    0.0579582 = product of:
  0.1159164 = sum of:
    0.09032987 = weight(_text_:open in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09032987 = score(doc=621,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.43088073 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
    0.025586532 = product of:
      0.051173065 = sum of:
        0.051173065 = weight(_text_:access in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051173065 = score(doc=621,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.3243113 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article statistically analyzes how the citation impact of articles deposited in the Condensed Matter section of the preprint server ArXiv (hosted by Cornell University), and subsequently published in a scientific journal, compares to that of articles in the same journal that were not deposited in the archive. Its principal aim is to further illustrate and roughly estimate the effect of two factors, early view and quality bias, on differences in citation impact between these two sets of papers, using citation data from Thomson Scientific's Web of Science. It presents estimates for a number of journals in the field of condensed matter physics. To discriminate between an open access effect and an early view effect, longitudinal citation data were analyzed covering a time period as long as 7 years. Quality bias was measured by calculating ArXiv citation impact differentials at the level of individual authors publishing in a journal, taking into account coauthorship. The analysis provided evidence of a strong quality bias and early view effect. Correcting for these effects, there is in a sample of six condensed matter physics journals studied in detail no sign of a general open access advantage of papers deposited in ArXiv. The study does provide evidence that ArXiv accelerates citation due to the fact that ArXiv makes papers available earlier rather than makes them freely available.
  17. Frandsen, T.F.: ¬The integration of open access journals in the scholarly communication system : three science fields (2009) 0.06 
    0.056787208 = product of:
  0.113574415 = sum of:
    0.088504836 = weight(_text_:open in 4210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088504836 = score(doc=4210,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.42217514 = fieldWeight in 4210, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4210)
    0.02506958 = product of:
      0.05013916 = sum of:
        0.05013916 = weight(_text_:access in 4210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05013916 = score(doc=4210,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.31775886 = fieldWeight in 4210, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The greatest number of open access journals (OAJs) is found in the sciences and their influence is growing. However, there are only a few studies on the acceptance and thereby integration of these OAJs in the scholarly communication system. Even fewer studies provide insight into the differences across disciplines. This study is an analysis of the citing behaviour in journals within three science fields: biology, mathematics, and pharmacy and pharmacology. It is a statistical analysis of OAJs as well as non-OAJs including both the citing and cited side of the journal to journal citations. The multivariate linear regression reveals many similarities in citing behaviour across fields and media. But it also points to great differences in the integration of OAJs. The integration of OAJs in the scholarly communication system varies considerably across fields. The implications for bibliometric research are discussed.
  18. Leeuwen, T.N. van; Tatum, C.; Wouters, P.F: Exploring possibilities to use bibliometric data to monitor gold open access publishing at the national level (2018) 0.06 
    0.056787208 = product of:
  0.113574415 = sum of:
    0.088504836 = weight(_text_:open in 4458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088504836 = score(doc=4458,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.42217514 = fieldWeight in 4458, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4458)
    0.02506958 = product of:
      0.05013916 = sum of:
        0.05013916 = weight(_text_:access in 4458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05013916 = score(doc=4458,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.31775886 = fieldWeight in 4458, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4458)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article1 describes the possibilities to analyze open access (OA) publishing in the Netherlands in an international comparative way. OA publishing is now actively stimulated by Dutch science policy, similar to the United Kingdom. We conducted a bibliometric baseline measurement to assess the current situation, to be able to measure developments over time. We collected data from various sources, and for three different smaller European countries (the Netherlands, Denmark, and Switzerland). Not all of the analyses for this baseline measurement are included here. The analysis presented in this article focuses on the various ways OA can be defined using the Web of Science, limiting the analysis mainly to Gold OA. From the data we collected we can conclude that the way OA is currently registered in various electronic bibliographic databases is quite unclear, and various methods applied deliver results that are different, although the impact scores derived from the data point in the same direction.
  19. Gaulé, P.: Access to scientific literature in India (2009) 0.05 
    0.054416955 = product of:
  0.10883391 = sum of:
    0.07301276 = weight(_text_:open in 3108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07301276 = score(doc=3108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.3482767 = fieldWeight in 3108, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3108)
    0.035821147 = product of:
      0.071642295 = sum of:
        0.071642295 = weight(_text_:access in 3108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071642295 = score(doc=3108,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.45403582 = fieldWeight in 3108, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article uses an evidence-based approach to assess the difficulties faced by developing country scientists in accessing scientific literature. I compare the backward citation patterns of Swiss and Indian scientists in a database of 43,150 scientific papers published by scientists from either country in 2007. Controlling for fields and quality with citing journal fixed effects, I find that Indian scientists have shorter reference lists (-6%) and are more likely to cite articles from open access journals (+50%). Moreover, the difference in the length of the reference list is more pronounced in biology and medicine, where circulation of (free) preprints and conference proceedings is non-existent. Informal file-sharing practices among scientists mitigate the effects of access restrictions.
  20. Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.; Rowland, F.: ¬The citation advantage of open-access articles (2008) 0.05 
    0.04967028 = product of:
  0.09934056 = sum of:
    0.07375403 = weight(_text_:open in 2374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07375403 = score(doc=2374,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.3518126 = fieldWeight in 2374, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2374)
    0.025586532 = product of:
      0.051173065 = sum of:
        0.051173065 = weight(_text_:access in 2374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051173065 = score(doc=2374,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.3243113 = fieldWeight in 2374, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2374)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Four subjects - ecology, applied mathematics, sociology, and economics - were selected to assess whether there is a citation advantage between journal articles that have an open-access (OA) version on the Internet compared to those articles that are exclusively toll access (TA). Citations were counted using the Web of Science, and the OA status of articles was determined by searching OAIster, OpenDOAR, Google, and Google Scholar. Of a sample of 4,633 articles examined, 2,280 (49%) were OA and had a mean citation count of 9.04 whereas the mean for TA articles was 5.76. There appears to be a clear citation advantage for those articles that are OA as opposed to those that are TA. This advantage, however, varies between disciplines, with sociology having the highest citation advantage, but the lowest number of OA articles, from the sample taken, and ecology having the highest individual citation count for OA articles, but the smallest citation advantage. Tests of correlation or association between OA status and a number of variables were generally found to weak or inconsistent. The cause of this citation advantage has not been determined.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 174
  • d 14
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 185
  • el 8
  • m 3
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications