Search (1323 results, page 2 of 67)

  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Nicholas, D.; Huntington, P.; Jamali, H.R.; Rowlands, I.; Fieldhouse, M.: Student digital information-seeking behaviour in context (2009) 0.06 
    0.06346937 = product of:
  0.12693875 = sum of:
    0.12693875 = sum of:
      0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08539981 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 2680, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2680)
      0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041538943 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2680, 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=2680)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This study provides evidence on the actual information-seeking behaviour of students in a digital scholarly environment, not what they thought they did. It also compares student information-seeking behaviour with that of other academic communities, and, in some cases, for practitioners. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered as part of CIBER's ongoing Virtual Scholar programme. In particular log data from two digital journals libraries, Blackwell Synergy and OhioLINK, and one e-book collection (Oxford Scholarship Online) are utilized. Findings - The study showed a distinctive form of information-seeking behaviour associated with students and differences between them and other members of the academic community. For example, students constituted the biggest users in terms of sessions and pages viewed, and they were more likely to undertake longer online sessions. Undergraduates and postgraduates were the most likely users of library links to access scholarly databases, suggesting an important "hot link" role for libraries. Originality/value - Few studies have focused on the actual (rather than perceived) information-seeking behaviour of students. The study fills that gap.
    Date
    23. 2.2009 17:22:41
  2. Althouse, B.M.; West, J.D.; Bergstrom, C.T.; Bergstrom, T.: Differences in impact factor across fields and over time (2009) 0.06 
    0.06346937 = product of:
  0.12693875 = sum of:
    0.12693875 = sum of:
      0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08539981 = score(doc=2695,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 2695, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2695)
      0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041538943 = score(doc=2695,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2695, 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=2695)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The bibliometric measure impact factor is a leading indicator of journal influence, and impact factors are routinely used in making decisions ranging from selecting journal subscriptions to allocating research funding to deciding tenure cases. Yet journal impact factors have increased gradually over time, and moreover impact factors vary widely across academic disciplines. Here we quantify inflation over time and differences across fields in impact factor scores and determine the sources of these differences. We find that the average number of citations in reference lists has increased gradually, and this is the predominant factor responsible for the inflation of impact factor scores over time. Field-specific variation in the fraction of citations to literature indexed by Thomson Scientific's Journal Citation Reports is the single greatest contributor to differences among the impact factors of journals in different fields. The growth rate of the scientific literature as a whole, and cross-field differences in net size and growth rate of individual fields, have had very little influence on impact factor inflation or on cross-field differences in impact factor.
    Date
    23. 2.2009 18:22:28
  3. Oppenheim, C.: Electronic scholarly publishing and open access (2009) 0.06 
    0.06346937 = product of:
  0.12693875 = sum of:
    0.12693875 = sum of:
      0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08539981 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 3662, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3662)
      0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041538943 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3662, 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=3662)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A review of recent developments in electronic publishing, with a focus on Open Access (OA) is provided. It describes the two main types of OA, i.e. the `gold' OA journal route and the 'green' repository route, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of the two, and the reactions of the publishing industry to these developments. Quality, cost and copyright issues are explored, as well as some of the business models of OA. It is noted that whilst so far there is no evidence that a shift to OA will lead to libraries cancelling subscriptions to toll-access journals, this may happen in the future, and that despite the apparently compelling reasons for authors to move to OA, so far few have shown themselves willing to do so. Conclusions about the future of scholarly publications are drawn.
    Date
    8. 7.2010 19:22:45
  4. Leathem, C.A.: Choices in cataloging electronic journals (2005) 0.06 
    0.056933206 = product of:
  0.11386641 = sum of:
    0.11386641 = product of:
      0.22773282 = sum of:
        0.22773282 = weight(_text_:journals in 758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22773282 = score(doc=758,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.88760704 = fieldWeight in 758, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=758)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  5. Vaughan, K.T.L.: impacts of electronic equivalents on print chemistry journal use : Changing use patterns of print journals in the digital age (2003) 0.06 
    0.05648667 = product of:
  0.11297334 = sum of:
    0.11297334 = product of:
      0.22594668 = sum of:
        0.22594668 = weight(_text_:journals in 1873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22594668 = score(doc=1873,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.8806454 = fieldWeight in 1873, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1873)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Little data are available that can help librarians solve issues surrounding print versus online journals management, including ascertaining when print journals are no longer needed. This study examines the short-term effects of online availability an the use of print chemistry journals. The Duke University Chemistry Library gained access to Elsevier titles via ScienceDirect in February 2000. By comparing reshelving data for the print journals from 1999, 2000, and 2001, this study identif!es the shortterm changes in journals use that can be attributed to the introduction of ScienceDirect. In the first two years after ScienceDirect was introduced, use of print journals nearly halved. The diminished use of the print collection has important implications for collection management in sci-tech libraries.
  6. Sotudeh, H.; Horri, A.: Tracking open access journals evolution : some considerations in open access data collection validation (2007) 0.06 
    0.05648667 = product of:
  0.11297334 = sum of:
    0.11297334 = product of:
      0.22594668 = sum of:
        0.22594668 = weight(_text_:journals in 593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22594668 = score(doc=593,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.8806454 = fieldWeight in 593, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article examines the evolution of a collection of open access journals (OAJs,) indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI; Thomson Scientific Philadelphia, PA) against four validity criteria including a free, immediate, full and constant access policy for at least 5 years. Few journals are found to be wrongly identified as OAJ or to have a dubious access policy. Some delayed journals evolved into gold OA; however, these are scarce compared to the number of journals that withdrew from gold OA to be an embargoed or a partially OAJ. A majority of the journals meet three of the criteria as they provide free and immediate access to their entire contents. Although a lot are found to follow a constant policy, a large number has an OA lifetime shorter than 5 years, due to the high frequency of newly launched or newly converted journals. That is the major factor affecting the validity of the collection. Only half of the collection meets all the requirements.
  7. Schrodt, R.: Tiefen und Untiefen im wissenschaftlichen Sprachgebrauch (2008) 0.05 
    0.05410544 = product of:
  0.10821088 = sum of:
    0.10821088 = product of:
      0.3246326 = sum of:
        0.3246326 = weight(_text_:3a in 140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3246326 = score(doc=140,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43321466 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 140, 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=140)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl. auch: https://studylibde.com/doc/13053640/richard-schrodt. Vgl. auch: http%3A%2F%2Fwww.univie.ac.at%2FGermanistik%2Fschrodt%2Fvorlesung%2Fwissenschaftssprache.doc&usg=AOvVaw1lDLDR6NFf1W0-oC9mEUJf.
  8. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.05 
    0.052891143 = product of:
  0.105782285 = sum of:
    0.105782285 = sum of:
      0.0711665 = weight(_text_:journals in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0711665 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.2773772 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.03461579 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03461579 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = 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(1/2)
    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.
  9. Meho, L.I.; Rogers, Y.: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers : a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science (2008) 0.05 
    0.052891143 = product of:
  0.105782285 = sum of:
    0.105782285 = sum of:
      0.0711665 = weight(_text_:journals in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0711665 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.2773772 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
      0.03461579 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03461579 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = 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)
    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.
  10. Tedd, L.A.: Use of library and information science journals by Master's students in their dissertations : experiences at the University of Wales Aberystwyth (2006) 0.05 
    0.052296486 = product of:
  0.10459297 = sum of:
    0.10459297 = product of:
      0.20918594 = sum of:
        0.20918594 = weight(_text_:journals in 4895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20918594 = score(doc=4895,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.8153191 = fieldWeight in 4895, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this research is to report on research undertaken into the use made of library and information science (LIS) journals in dissertations written by students undertaking the Master's course in Information and Library Studies at the University of Wales Aberystwyth. Design/methodology/approach - Analysis of the citations of 100 (post 2000) dissertations submitted gives an indication of the range of material used in dissertations. In addition, responses to questionnaires from students provide information about how relevant papers are found from LIS journals. Findings - Journals with a practical bias were cited more than research-oriented journals. Lists of the most "popular" journal titles are included. Originality/value - The research provides a "snapshot" of the use made of LIS journals by Master's students in their dissertations.
  11. Zhang, Y.: Scholarly use of Internet-based electronic resources (2001) 0.05 
    0.052296486 = product of:
  0.10459297 = sum of:
    0.10459297 = product of:
      0.20918594 = sum of:
        0.20918594 = weight(_text_:journals in 5212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20918594 = score(doc=5212,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.8153191 = fieldWeight in 5212, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5212)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    By Internet resources Zhang means any electronic file accessible by any Internet protocol. Their usage is determined by an examination of the citations to such sources in a nine-year sample of four print and four electronic LIS journals, by a survey of editors of these journals, and by a survey of scholars with "in press" papers in these journals. Citations were gathered from Social Science Citation Index and manually classed as e-sources by the format used. All authors with "in press" papers were asked about their use and opinion of Internet sources and for any suggestions for improvement. Use of electronic sources is heavy and access is very high. Access and ability explain most usage while satisfaction was not significant. Citation of e-journals increases over the eight years. Authors report under citation of e-journals in favor of print equivalents. Traditional reasons are given for citing and not citing, but additional reasons are also present for e-journals.
  12. Vinkler, P.: Characterization of the impact of sets of scientific papers : the Garfield (impact) Factor (2004) 0.05 
    0.050322324 = product of:
  0.10064465 = sum of:
    0.10064465 = product of:
      0.2012893 = sum of:
        0.2012893 = weight(_text_:journals in 2227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2012893 = score(doc=2227,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.78454125 = fieldWeight in 2227, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The Garfield (Impact) Factor (GF) is one of the most frequently used scientometric indicators. In the present article it is shown that the main factors determining the value of the mean GF representing a set of journals are the number of articles published recently (articles referencing) related to those published in a previous time period (articles to be referenced) and the mean number of references in journal papers referring to the time period selected. It has been proved further that GF corresponds to the mean chance for citedness of journal papers. A new indicator, Specific Impact Contribution (SIC), is introduced, which characterizes the contribution of a subset of articles or a journal to the total impact of the respective articles or journals. The SIC Index relates the share of a journal in citations divided by that in publications within a set of papers or journals appropriately selected. It is shown, however, that the normalized GFs of journals and the normalized SIC indicators are identical measures within any set of journals selected. It may be stated therefore that Garfield Factors of journals (calculated correctly) are appropriate scientometric measures for characterizing the relative international eminence of journals within a set of journals appropriately selected. It is demonstrated further that SIC indicators (and so GF indexes) correspond to the (number of citations per paper) indicators generally used, within the same set of papers.
  13. Leydesdorff, L.: Dynamic and evolutionary updates of classificatory schemes in scientific journal structures (2002) 0.05 
    0.049816553 = product of:
  0.099633105 = sum of:
    0.099633105 = product of:
      0.19926621 = sum of:
        0.19926621 = weight(_text_:journals in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19926621 = score(doc=1249,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.77665615 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Can the inclusion of new journals in the Science Citation Index be used for the indication of structural change in the database, and how can this change be compared with reorganizations of reiations among previously included journals? Change in the number of journals (n) is distinguished from change in the number of journal categories (m). Although the number of journals can be considered as a given at each moment in time, the number of journal categories is based an a reconstruction that is time-stamped ex post. The reflexive reconstruction is in need of an update when new information becomes available in a next year. Implications of this shift towards an evolutionary perspective are specified.
  14. Kling, R.; Callahan, E.: Electronic journals, the Internet, and scholarly communication (2002) 0.05 
    0.049816553 = product of:
  0.099633105 = sum of:
    0.099633105 = product of:
      0.19926621 = sum of:
        0.19926621 = weight(_text_:journals in 1969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19926621 = score(doc=1969,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.77665615 = fieldWeight in 1969, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1969)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  15. Stehno, B.; Retti, G.: Modelling the logical structure of books and journals using augmented transition network grammars (2003) 0.05 
    0.049816553 = product of:
  0.099633105 = sum of:
    0.099633105 = product of:
      0.19926621 = sum of:
        0.19926621 = weight(_text_:journals in 4459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19926621 = score(doc=4459,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.77665615 = fieldWeight in 4459, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4459)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper presents a grammar for books and journals using augmented transition networks in automated document analysis. The approach takes the structure of layout elements in books and journals to be part of a semiotic system, which therefore can be described using methods developed for the description of other semiotic systems, e.g. languages. It differs from previous research in the domain of document analysis and understanding as it deals in an exhaustive way with rather generic classes of multi-page printed objects, i.e. books (monographs) and journals. To achieve this aim, abstract relations instead of document specific formatting rules are taken into account.
  16. Walters, G.D.: Measuring the utility of journals in the crime-psychology field : beyond the impact factor (2006) 0.05 
    0.047739945 = product of:
  0.09547989 = sum of:
    0.09547989 = product of:
      0.19095978 = sum of:
        0.19095978 = weight(_text_:journals in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19095978 = score(doc=211,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.7442812 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A measure of formal journal utility designed to offset some of the more noteworthy limitations of the impact factor (IF) - i.e., short follow-up, citations to items in the numerator that are not included in the denominator, self-citations, and the greater citation rate of review articles - was constructed and applied to 15 crime-psychology journals. This measure, referred to as Citations Per Article (CPA), was correlated with a measure of informal journal utility defined as the frequency with which 58 first authors in the field consulted these 15 crime-psychology journals. Results indicated that the CPA, but not the IF, correlated significantly with informal utility. Two journals (Law and Human Behavior and Criminal Justice and Behavior) displayed consistently high impact across measures of formal and informal utility while several other journals (Journal of Interpersonal Violence; Psychology, Public Policy, and Law; Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment; and Behavioral Sciences and the Law) showed signs of moderate impact when formal and informal measures were combined.
  17. González, L.; Campanario, J.M.: Structure of the impact factor of journals included in the Social Sciences Citation Index : citations from documents labeled "Editorial Material" (2007) 0.05 
    0.047739945 = product of:
  0.09547989 = sum of:
    0.09547989 = product of:
      0.19095978 = sum of:
        0.19095978 = weight(_text_:journals in 75) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19095978 = score(doc=75,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.7442812 = fieldWeight in 75, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=75)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We investigated how citations from documents labeled by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) as "editorial material" contribute to the impact factor of academic journals in which they were published. Our analysis is based on records corresponding to the documents classified by the ISI as editorial material published in journals covered by the Social Sciences Citation Index between 1999 and 2003 (50,273 records corresponding to editorial material published in 2,374 journals). The results appear to rule out widespread manipulation of the impact factor by academic journals publishing large amounts of editorial material with many citations to the journal itself as a strategy to increase the impact factor.
  18. Leydesdorff, L.: Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals (2007) 0.05 
    0.047739945 = product of:
  0.09547989 = sum of:
    0.09547989 = product of:
      0.19095978 = sum of:
        0.19095978 = weight(_text_:journals in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19095978 = score(doc=453,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.7442812 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In addition to science citation indicators of journals like impact and immediacy, social network analysis provides a set of centrality measures like degree, betweenness, and closeness centrality. These measures are first analyzed for the entire set of 7,379 journals included in the Journal Citation Reports of the Science Citation Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index 2004 (Thomson ISI, Philadelphia, PA), and then also in relation to local citation environments that can be considered as proxies of specialties and disciplines. Betweenness centrality is shown to be an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals, but only in local citation environments and after normalization; otherwise, the influence of degree centrality (size) overshadows the betweenness-centrality measure. The indicator is applied to a variety of citation environments, including policy-relevant ones like biotechnology and nanotechnology. The values of the indicator remain sensitive to the delineations of the set because of the indicator's local character. Maps showing interdisciplinarity of journals in terms of betweenness centrality can be drawn using information about journal citation environments, which is available online.
  19. Vetere, G.; Lenzerini, M.: Models for semantic interoperability in service-oriented architectures (2005) 0.05 
    0.047342256 = product of:
  0.09468451 = sum of:
    0.09468451 = product of:
      0.28405353 = sum of:
        0.28405353 = weight(_text_:3a in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.28405353 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43321466 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5386707&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5386707.
  20. Stock, W.G.; Schlögl, C.: Practitioners and academics as authors and readers : the case of LIS journals (2008) 0.05 
    0.04500965 = product of:
  0.0900193 = sum of:
    0.0900193 = product of:
      0.1800386 = sum of:
        0.1800386 = weight(_text_:journals in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1800386 = score(doc=2343,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.701715 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics in scholarly communication in library and information science (LIS) journals. Design/methodology/approach - The research is based on a reader survey, a citation analysis and an editor survey. The reader survey identifies both differences in journal rankings between practitioners and academics and the contribution of practitioners to LIS journals. The editor survey provides the proportions of practitioners and academics for the journals. The citation analysis shows the disparities in information exchange between the journals mainly preferred by practitioners and those more favoured by academics. Furthermore, it is possible to explore if practitioner journals differ from academic journals in the citation indicators and in other data collected in the editor survey. Findings - It is found that: practitioners play an active role both as readers and as authors of articles in LIS journals; there is only a low level of information exchange between practitioner and academic journals; the placement of advertisements, the size of the editorial board, requirements concerning an extensive bibliography, the number and the half-life of the references show a clear distinction between practitioner and academic journals. Interestingly, the impact factor did not turn out to be a good indicator to differentiate a practitioner from an academic journal. Research limitations/implications - This research is only exploratory because it is based on separate studies previously conducted. Further research is also needed to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics more deeply. Originality/value - The value of this paper lies in bringing together the findings from complementary studies (reader survey, editor survey and citation analysis) and identifying hypotheses for future research, especially with regards to the roles of and interactions between LIS practitioners and academics in scholarly communication.

Authors

Languages

Types

Themes