-
Li, T.-C.: Reference sources in periodicals : research note (1995)
0.07
0.07041947 = product of:
0.11736577 = sum of:
0.006895969 = weight(_text_:a in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006895969 = score(doc=5092,freq=4.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
0.087982036 = weight(_text_:63 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.087982036 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.43291122 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
0.022487769 = product of:
0.044975538 = sum of:
0.044975538 = weight(_text_:22 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044975538 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- Presents a list of 53 periodicals in 22 subject fields which regularly provide bibliographies of theses, research in progress and patents in their particular subject field. The fields of business, economics, history and literature have most periodical listings of dissertations and theses. Also lists 63 periodicals in 25 sub-disciplines which provide rankings or ratings. Rankings and ratings information predominates in the fields of business, sports and games, finance and banking, and library and information science
- Type
- a
-
Suraud, M.G.; Quoniam, L.; Rostaing, H.; Dou, H.: On the significance of data bases keywords for a large scale bibliometric investigation in fundamental physics (1995)
0.06
0.056926806 = product of:
0.14231701 = sum of:
0.010343953 = weight(_text_:a in 6094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010343953 = score(doc=6094,freq=4.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 6094, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6094)
0.13197306 = weight(_text_:63 in 6094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13197306 = score(doc=6094,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.64936686 = fieldWeight in 6094, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6094)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Source
- Scientometrics. 33(1995) no.1, S.41-63
- Type
- a
-
Bartolucci, F.: On a possible decomposition of the h-index. (2012)
0.06
0.056926806 = product of:
0.14231701 = sum of:
0.010343953 = weight(_text_:a in 454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010343953 = score(doc=454,freq=4.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 454, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=454)
0.13197306 = weight(_text_:63 in 454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13197306 = score(doc=454,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.64936686 = fieldWeight in 454, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=454)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.10, S.2126-2127
- Type
- a
-
Prathap, G.: ¬The thermodynamics-bibliometrics consilience and the meaning of h-type indices (2012)
0.06
0.055714935 = product of:
0.13928734 = sum of:
0.0073142797 = weight(_text_:a in 4990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0073142797 = score(doc=4990,freq=2.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4990, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4990)
0.13197306 = weight(_text_:63 in 4990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13197306 = score(doc=4990,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.64936686 = fieldWeight in 4990, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4990)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.430
- Type
- a
-
Prathap, G.: ¬The inconsistency of the H-index (2012)
0.06
0.055714935 = product of:
0.13928734 = sum of:
0.0073142797 = weight(_text_:a in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0073142797 = score(doc=287,freq=2.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 287, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=287)
0.13197306 = weight(_text_:63 in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13197306 = score(doc=287,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.64936686 = fieldWeight in 287, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=287)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1466-1470
- Type
- a
-
Leydesdorff, L.: Accounting for the uncertainty in the evaluation of percentile ranks (2012)
0.06
0.055714935 = product of:
0.13928734 = sum of:
0.0073142797 = weight(_text_:a in 447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0073142797 = score(doc=447,freq=2.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 447, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=447)
0.13197306 = weight(_text_:63 in 447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13197306 = score(doc=447,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.64936686 = fieldWeight in 447, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=447)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.11, S.2349-2350
- Type
- a
-
¬Die deutsche Zeitschrift für Dokumentation, Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis von 1950 bis 2011 : eine vorläufige Bilanz in vier Abschnitten (2012)
0.05
0.053512026 = product of:
0.089186706 = sum of:
0.0063343523 = weight(_text_:a in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0063343523 = score(doc=402,freq=6.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
0.06598653 = weight(_text_:63 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06598653 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.32468343 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
0.016865825 = product of:
0.03373165 = sum of:
0.03373165 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03373165 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Date
- 22. 7.2012 19:35:26
- Footnote
- Besteht aus 4 Teilen: Teil 1: Eden, D., A. Arndt, A. Hoffer, T. Raschke u. P. Schön: Die Nachrichten für Dokumentation in den Jahren 1950 bis 1962 (S.159-163). Teil 2: Brose, M., E. durst, D. Nitzsche, D. Veckenstedt u. R. Wein: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1963-1975 (S.164-170). Teil 3: Bösel, J., G. Ebert, P. Garz,, M. Iwanow u. B. Russ: Methoden und Ergebnisse einer statistischen Auswertung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1976 bis 1988 (S.171-174). Teil 4: Engelage, H., S. Jansen, R. Mertins, K. Redel u. S. Ring: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) / "Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis" (IWP) 1989-2011 (S.164-170).
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.3, S.157-182
- Type
- a
-
Jovanovic, M.: ¬Eine kleine Frühgeschichte der Bibliometrie (2012)
0.05
0.0519057 = product of:
0.086509496 = sum of:
0.0036571398 = weight(_text_:a in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0036571398 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 326, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=326)
0.06598653 = weight(_text_:63 in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06598653 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.32468343 = fieldWeight in 326, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=326)
0.016865825 = product of:
0.03373165 = sum of:
0.03373165 = weight(_text_:22 in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03373165 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 326, 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=326)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Date
- 22. 7.2012 19:23:32
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.2, S.71-80
- Type
- a
-
Trevorrow, P.: ¬The use of H-index for the assessment of journals' performance will lead to shifts in editorial policies : a response (2012)
0.05
0.047439 = product of:
0.1185975 = sum of:
0.008619961 = weight(_text_:a in 49) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008619961 = score(doc=49,freq=4.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 49, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=49)
0.109977536 = weight(_text_:63 in 49) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.109977536 = score(doc=49,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.541139 = fieldWeight in 49, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=49)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.845-846
- Type
- a
-
Chang, Y.-W.; Huang, M.-H.: ¬A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science : using three bibliometric methods (2012)
0.04
0.044593353 = product of:
0.07432225 = sum of:
0.005278627 = weight(_text_:a in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005278627 = score(doc=4959,freq=6.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
0.054988768 = weight(_text_:63 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054988768 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.2705695 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
0.014054855 = product of:
0.02810971 = sum of:
0.02810971 = weight(_text_:22 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02810971 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4959, 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=4959)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- This study uses three bibliometric methods: direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-authorship analysis, to investigate interdisciplinary changes in library and information science (LIS) from 1978 to 2007. The results reveal that LIS researchers most frequently cite publications in their own discipline. In addition, half of all co-authors of LIS articles are affiliated with LIS-related institutes. The results confirm that the degree of interdisciplinarity within LIS has increased, particularly co-authorship. However, the study found sources of direct citations in LIS articles are widely distributed across 30 disciplines, but co-authors of LIS articles are distributed across only 25 disciplines. The degree of interdisciplinarity was found ranging from 0.61 to 0.82 with citation to references in all articles being the highest and that of co-authorship being the lowest. Percentages of contribution attributable to LIS show a decreasing tendency based on the results of direct citation and co-authorship analysis, but an increasing tendency based on those of bibliographic coupling analysis. Such differences indicate each of the three bibliometric methods has its strength and provides insights respectively for viewing various aspects of interdisciplinarity, suggesting the use of no single bibliometric method can reveal all aspects of interdisciplinarity due to its multifaceted nature.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.22-33
- Type
- a
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012)
0.04
0.044593353 = product of:
0.07432225 = sum of:
0.005278627 = weight(_text_:a in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005278627 = score(doc=57,freq=6.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
0.054988768 = weight(_text_:63 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054988768 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.2705695 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
0.014054855 = product of:
0.02810971 = sum of:
0.02810971 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02810971 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, 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=57)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- Webometric network analyses have been used to map the connectivity of groups of websites to identify clusters, important sites or overall structure. Such analyses have mainly been based upon hyperlink counts, the number of hyperlinks between a pair of websites, although some have used title mentions or URL citations instead. The ability to automatically gather hyperlink counts from Yahoo! ceased in April 2011 and the ability to manually gather such counts was due to cease by early 2012, creating a need for alternatives. This article assesses URL citations and title mentions as possible replacements for hyperlinks in both binary and weighted direct link and co-inlink network diagrams. It also assesses three different types of data for the network connections: hit count estimates, counts of matching URLs, and filtered counts of matching URLs. Results from analyses of U.S. library and information science departments and U.K. universities give evidence that metrics based upon URLs or titles can be appropriate replacements for metrics based upon hyperlinks for both binary and weighted networks, although filtered counts of matching URLs are necessary to give the best results for co-title mention and co-URL citation network diagrams.
- Date
- 6. 4.2012 18:16:22
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.805-816
- Type
- a
-
Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011)
0.04
0.044012163 = product of:
0.0733536 = sum of:
0.0043099807 = weight(_text_:a in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0043099807 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
0.054988768 = weight(_text_:63 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054988768 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.2705695 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
0.014054855 = product of:
0.02810971 = sum of:
0.02810971 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02810971 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = 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)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- 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.
- Type
- a
-
Jonkers, K.; Derrick, G.E.: ¬The bibliometric bandwagon : characteristics of bibliometric articles outside the field literature (2012)
0.04
0.03986136 = product of:
0.09965339 = sum of:
0.0063343523 = weight(_text_:a in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0063343523 = score(doc=261,freq=6.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
0.09331904 = weight(_text_:63 in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09331904 = score(doc=261,freq=4.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.4591717 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The controversial use of bibliometrics in scientific decision making has necessitated the need for researchers to remain informed and engaged about bibliometrics. Glänzel and Schoepflin () first raised the issue of bibliometric standards in bibliometric research and this concern has been echoed by several additional bibliometric researchers over time (Braun, ; Glänzel, ; Abbott, Cyranoski, Jones, Maher, Schiermeier, & Van Noorden, ; Lane, ; Nature, ; van Noorden, ; Wallin, ). We compare the characteristics of articles published within and outside the Library and Information Science (LIS) field, including the relative impact and the affiliation of the contributing authors. We find that although the visibility of bibliometric articles within LIS is higher, it is not significant. However, a statistically significant growth in the number of articles written by authors without a bibliometric affiliation was found. This article provides an independent empirical investigation of publication trends potentially underlying Glänzel and Schoepflin's () concerns regarding the misuse of bibliometric results, and the inaccurate dissemination of concepts, results, and methods outside of the bibliometric field.
- Content
- Erratum dazu in: JASIST 63(2012) no.6, S.1280.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.829-836
- Type
- a
-
Glänzel, W.; Rousseau, D.; Zhang, L.: ¬A visual representation of relative first-citation times (2012)
0.04
0.039093763 = product of:
0.09773441 = sum of:
0.009752372 = weight(_text_:a in 285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009752372 = score(doc=285,freq=8.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 285, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=285)
0.087982036 = weight(_text_:63 in 285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.087982036 = score(doc=285,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.43291122 = fieldWeight in 285, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=285)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- A new visual representation of the response time, i.e., the time elapsed between the publication year and the date of the first citation of a paper, is provided. This presentation can be used to detect and describe different paradigmatic types of reception speed for scientific journals.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1420-1425
- Type
- a
-
Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F.: SciMAT: A new science mapping analysis software tool (2012)
0.04
0.035309125 = product of:
0.08827281 = sum of:
0.01128853 = weight(_text_:a in 373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01128853 = score(doc=373,freq=14.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 373, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=373)
0.07698428 = weight(_text_:63 in 373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07698428 = score(doc=373,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.37879732 = fieldWeight in 373, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=373)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This article presents a new open-source software tool, SciMAT, which performs science mapping analysis within a longitudinal framework. It provides different modules that help the analyst to carry out all the steps of the science mapping workflow. In addition, SciMAT presents three key features that are remarkable in respect to other science mapping software tools: (a) a powerful preprocessing module to clean the raw bibliographical data, (b) the use of bibliometric measures to study the impact of each studied element, and (c) a wizard to configure the analysis.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.8, S.1609-1630
- Type
- a
-
Burrell, Q.L.: Alternative thoughts on uncitedness (2012)
0.03
0.034609932 = product of:
0.08652483 = sum of:
0.0095405495 = weight(_text_:a in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0095405495 = score(doc=290,freq=10.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 290, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=290)
0.07698428 = weight(_text_:63 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07698428 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.37879732 = fieldWeight in 290, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=290)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- In a recent article, L. Egghe, R. Guns, and R. Rousseau () noted that in a study of some eminent scientists, many of them had a fair proportion of papers which were uncited and found this to be surprising. Here, we use the stochastic publication/citation model of Q.L. Burrell () to show that the result might in fact be expected. This brief communication is in the spirit of Q.L. Burrell (, ), showing that results that might at first sight seem to be surprising can in fact often be explainable in a stochastic framework.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1466-1470
- Type
- a
-
Egghe, L.: Remarks on the paper by A. De Visscher, "what does the g-index really measure?" (2012)
0.03
0.034609932 = product of:
0.08652483 = sum of:
0.0095405495 = weight(_text_:a in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0095405495 = score(doc=463,freq=10.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 463, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=463)
0.07698428 = weight(_text_:63 in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07698428 = score(doc=463,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.37879732 = fieldWeight in 463, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=463)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The author presents a different view on properties of impact measures than given in the paper of De Visscher (2011). He argues that a good impact measure works better when citations are concentrated rather than spread out over articles. The author also presents theoretical evidence that the g-index and the R-index can be close to the square root of the total number of citations, whereas this is not the case for the A-index. Here the author confirms an assertion of De Visscher.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.10, S.2118-2121
- Type
- a
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Abdoli, M.: ¬The role of online videos in research communication : a content analysis of YouTube videos cited in academic publications (2012)
0.03
0.03383222 = product of:
0.08458055 = sum of:
0.006814678 = weight(_text_:a in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006814678 = score(doc=382,freq=10.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
0.07776587 = weight(_text_:63 in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07776587 = score(doc=382,freq=4.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.38264307 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Although there is some evidence that online videos are increasingly used by academics for informal scholarly communication and teaching, the extent to which they are used in published academic research is unknown. This article explores the extent to which YouTube videos are cited in academic publications and whether there are significant broad disciplinary differences in this practice. To investigate, we extracted the URL citations to YouTube videos from academic publications indexed by Scopus. A total of 1,808 Scopus publications cited at least one YouTube video, and there was a steady upward growth in citing online videos within scholarly publications from 2006 to 2011, with YouTube citations being most common within arts and humanities (0.3%) and the social sciences (0.2%). A content analysis of 551 YouTube videos cited by research articles indicated that in science (78%) and in medicine and health sciences (77%), over three fourths of the cited videos had either direct scientific (e.g., laboratory experiments) or scientific-related contents (e.g., academic lectures or education) whereas in the arts and humanities, about 80% of the YouTube videos had art, culture, or history themes, and in the social sciences, about 63% of the videos were related to news, politics, advertisements, and documentaries. This shows both the disciplinary differences and the wide variety of innovative research communication uses found for videos within the different subject areas.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.9, S.1710-1727
- Type
- a
-
Frandsen, T.F.; Nicolaisen, J.: Effects of academic experience and prestige on researchers' citing behavior (2012)
0.03
0.03374974 = product of:
0.08437435 = sum of:
0.0073900777 = weight(_text_:a in 4962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0073900777 = score(doc=4962,freq=6.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 4962, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4962)
0.07698428 = weight(_text_:63 in 4962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07698428 = score(doc=4962,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.37879732 = fieldWeight in 4962, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4962)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This article reports the findings of a bibliometric study of the measurable effects of experience and prestige on researchers' citing behavior. All single authors from two econometrics journals over a 10-year time period form the basis of the analysis of how experience and prestige affect the number of references in their publications. Preliminary results from linear regression models suggest that two author types can be characterized using this analysis. Review experience seems to be the decisive factor in the data. The article discusses the implications of the findings and offers suggestions for future research within this new and promising area.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.64-71
- Type
- a
-
Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van; Raan, A.F.J. van: Universality of citation distributions revisited (2012)
0.03
0.03374974 = product of:
0.08437435 = sum of:
0.0073900777 = weight(_text_:a in 4963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0073900777 = score(doc=4963,freq=6.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 4963, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4963)
0.07698428 = weight(_text_:63 in 4963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07698428 = score(doc=4963,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.37879732 = fieldWeight in 4963, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4963)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Radicchi, Fortunato, and Castellano (2008) claim that, apart from a scaling factor, all fields of science are characterized by the same citation distribution. We present a large-scale validation study of this universality-of-citation-distributions claim. Our analysis shows that claiming citation distributions to be universal for all fields of science is not warranted. Although many fields indeed seem to have fairly similar citation distributions, there are exceptions as well. We also briefly discuss the consequences of our findings for the measurement of scientific impact using citation-based bibliometric indicators.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.72-77
- Type
- a
