Search (1802 results, page 1 of 91)

0.22250943 = product of:
  0.33376414 = sum of:
    0.29454443 = weight(_text_:citation in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29454443 = score(doc=1735,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        1.2563207 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
    0.039219696 = product of:
      0.07843939 = sum of:
        0.07843939 = weight(_text_:reports in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07843939 = score(doc=1735,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.34833482 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of new citation-enhanced databases and to identify issues to be considered when they are used as a data source for performing citation analysis. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reports the limitations of Thomson Scientific's citation indexes and reviews the characteristics of the citation-enhanced databases Chemical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Scopus. Findings - The study suggests that citation-enhanced databases need to be examined carefully, with regard to both their potentialities and their limitations for citation analysis. Originality/value - The paper presents a valuable overview of new citation-enhanced databases in the context of research evaluation.

Object

Science citation index
Social sciences citation index
Arts and humanities citation index

Theme

Citation indexing

0.21936135 = product of:
  0.32904202 = sum of:
    0.27485085 = weight(_text_:citation in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27485085 = score(doc=6091,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        1.1723217 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
    0.054191172 = product of:
      0.108382344 = sum of:
        0.108382344 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108382344 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

Theme

Citation indexing

0.18453708 = product of:
  0.2768056 = sum of:
    0.24293612 = weight(_text_:citation in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24293612 = score(doc=613,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        1.0361958 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
    0.033869483 = product of:
      0.067738965 = sum of:
        0.067738965 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067738965 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

Abschnitte zu: The origins of citation indexing in science - Citation analysis in sociology, history and philosophy of science - From ASIS to ASIST

Source

Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25

Theme

Citation indexing

0.17745599 = product of:
  0.26618397 = sum of:
    0.21864252 = weight(_text_:citation in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21864252 = score(doc=453,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.9325762 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
    0.047541454 = product of:
      0.09508291 = sum of:
        0.09508291 = weight(_text_:reports in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09508291 = score(doc=453,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.4222456 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

Object

Journal Citation Reports

0.17624287 = product of:
  0.2643643 = sum of:
    0.20613813 = weight(_text_:citation in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20613813 = score(doc=1953,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.8792412 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
    0.058226153 = product of:
      0.11645231 = sum of:
        0.11645231 = weight(_text_:reports in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11645231 = score(doc=1953,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.51714313 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper examines the probability structure of the 2005 Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) Journal Citation Reports (JCR) by analyzing the Impact Factor distributions of their journals. The distribution of the SCI journals corresponded with a distribution generally modeled by the negative binomial distribution, whereas the SSCI distribution fit the Poisson distribution modeling random, rare events. Both Impact Factor distributions were positively skewed - the SCI much more so than the SSCI - indicating excess variance. One of the causes of this excess variance was that the journals highest in the Impact Factor in both JCRs tended to class in subject categories well funded by the National Institutes of Health. The main reason for the SCI Impact Factor distribution being more skewed than the SSCI one was that review journals defining disciplinary paradigms play a much more important role in the sciences than in the social sciences.

Object

Science Citation Index
Social Sciences Citation Index
Journal Citation Reports

Theme

Citation indexing

0.17182502 = product of:
  0.25773752 = sum of:
    0.1943489 = weight(_text_:citation in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1943489 = score(doc=1746,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.8289566 = fieldWeight in 1746, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1746)
    0.06338861 = product of:
      0.12677722 = sum of:
        0.12677722 = weight(_text_:reports in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12677722 = score(doc=1746,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.5629941 = fieldWeight in 1746, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The timeline used in ISI's Journal Citation Reports (JCR; Thomson ISI, formerly the Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA) for half-life calculations, is not a timeline for (average) cited age. These two timelines are shifted over half a year.

Object

Journal Citation Reports

Theme

Citation indexing

0.16909254 = product of:
  0.2536388 = sum of:
    0.14576167 = weight(_text_:citation in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14576167 = score(doc=4460,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.62171745 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
    0.10787715 = sum of:
      0.06723377 = weight(_text_:reports in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06723377 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.29857272 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
      0.04064338 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04064338 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, 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=4460)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Aggregated journal-journal citations can be used for mapping the intellectual organization of the sciences in terms of specialties because the latter can be considered as interreading communities. Can the journal-journal citations also be used as early indicators of change by comparing the files for two subsequent years? Probabilistic entropy measures enable us to analyze changes in large datasets at different levels of aggregation and in considerable detail. Compares Journal Citation Reports of the Social Science Citation Index for 1999 with similar data for 1998 and analyzes the differences using these measures. Compares the various indicators with similar developments in the Science Citation Index. Specialty formation seems a more important mechanism in the development of the social sciences than in the natural and life sciences, but the developments in the social sciences are volatile. The use of aggregate statistics based on the Science Citation Index is ill-advised in the case of the social sciences because of structural differences in the underlying dynamics.

Date

6.11.2005 19:02:22

0.16578043 = product of:
  0.24867064 = sum of:
    0.224962 = weight(_text_:citation in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.224962 = score(doc=6920,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.9595307 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
    0.023708638 = product of:
      0.047417276 = sum of:
        0.047417276 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047417276 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Over a 35-year period, Irving H. Sher played a critical role in the development and implementation of the Science Citation Index and other ISI products. Trained as a biochemist, statistician, and linguist, Sher brought a unique combination of talents to ISI as Director of Quality Control and Director of Research and Development. His talents as a teacher and mentor evoked loyalty. He was a particularly inventive but self-taught programmer. In addition to the SCI, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index,

Date

16.12.2001 14:01:22

Object

Science Citation Index
Social Sciences Citation Index
Arts and Humanities Citation Index

Theme

Citation indexing

0.1544505 = product of:
  0.23167576 = sum of:
    0.19205788 = weight(_text_:citation in 5184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19205788 = score(doc=5184,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.8191847 = fieldWeight in 5184, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5184)
    0.039617877 = product of:
      0.079235755 = sum of:
        0.079235755 = weight(_text_:reports in 5184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079235755 = score(doc=5184,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.3518713 = fieldWeight in 5184, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In one of two bibliometric papers in this issue Brown looks at formal publication and citation of Eprints as shown by the policies and practices of 37 top tier physics journals, and by citation trends in ISI's SciSearch database and Journal Citation Reports. Citation analysis was carried out if Eprint cites were indicated by editor response, instruction to authors sections, reports in the literature, or actual examination of citation lists. Total contribution to 12 archives and their citation counts in the journals were compiled. Of the 13 editors surveyed that responded, 8 published papers that had appeared in the archive. Two of these required removal from the archive at publication; two of the 13 did not publish papers that have appeared as Eprints. A review journal that solicits its contributions allowed citation of Eprints. Seven allowed citations to Eprints, but were less than enthusiastic.Nearly 36,000 citations were made to the 12 archives. Citations to the 37 journals and their impact factors remain constant over the period of 1991 to 1998. Eprint citations appear to peak about 3 years after appearance as do citations to published papers. Contribution to the archives, and their use as measured by citation, is clearly growing. Citation form and publishing policy varies from journal to journal.

Theme

Citation indexing

0.15070823 = product of:
  0.22606233 = sum of:
    0.17852087 = weight(_text_:citation in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17852087 = score(doc=2840,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.7614453 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
    0.047541454 = product of:
      0.09508291 = sum of:
        0.09508291 = weight(_text_:reports in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09508291 = score(doc=2840,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.4222456 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper explores the ISI Journal Citation Reports (JCR) bibliographic and subject structures through Library of Congress (LC) and American research libraries cataloging and classification methodology. The 2006 Science Citation Index JCR Behavioral Sciences subject category journals are used as an example. From the library perspective, the main fault of the JCR bibliographic structure is that the JCR mistakenly identifies journal title segments as journal bibliographic entities, seriously affecting journal rankings by total cites and the impact factor. In respect to JCR subject structure, the title segment, which constitutes the JCR bibliographic basis, is posited as the best bibliographic entity for the citation measurement of journal subject relationships. Through factor analysis and other methods, the JCR subject categorization of journals is tested against their LC subject headings and classification. The finding is that JCR and library journal subject analyses corroborate, clarify, and correct each other.

Object

Journal Citation Report

0.14746177 = product of:
  0.22119266 = sum of:
    0.1629665 = weight(_text_:citation in 4427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1629665 = score(doc=4427,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.69510126 = fieldWeight in 4427, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4427)
    0.058226153 = product of:
      0.11645231 = sum of:
        0.11645231 = weight(_text_:reports in 4427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11645231 = score(doc=4427,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.51714313 = fieldWeight in 4427, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4427)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix derived from Journal Citation Reports 2001 can be decomposed into a unique subject classification using the graph-analytical algorithm of bi-connected components. This technique was recently incorporated in software tools for social network analysis. The matrix can be assessed in terms of its decomposability using articulation points which indicate overlap between the components. The articulation points of this set did not exhibit a next-order network of "general science" journals. However, the clusters differ in size and in terms of the internal density of their relations. A full classification of the journals is provided in the Appendix. The clusters can also be extracted and mapped for the visualization.

Object

Journal Citation Reports

Theme

Citation indexing

0.14671463 = product of:
  0.22007194 = sum of:
    0.19205788 = weight(_text_:citation in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19205788 = score(doc=82,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.8191847 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
    0.02801407 = product of:
      0.05602814 = sum of:
        0.05602814 = weight(_text_:reports in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05602814 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.24881059 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Aggregated journal-journal citation networks based on the Journal Citation Reports 2004 of the Science Citation Index (5,968 journals) and the Social Science Citation Index (1,712 journals) are made accessible from the perspective of any of these journals. A vector-space model Is used for normalization, and the results are brought online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr04 as input files for the visualization program Pajek. The user is thus able to analyze the citation environment in terms of links and graphs. Furthermore, the local impact of a journal is defined as its share of the total citations in the specific journal's citation environments; the vertical size of the nodes is varied proportionally to this citation impact. The horizontal size of each node can be used to provide the same information after correction for within-journal (self-)citations. In the "citing" environment, the equivalents of this measure can be considered as a citation activity index which maps how the relevant journal environment is perceived by the collective of authors of a given journal. As a policy application, the mechanism of Interdisciplinary developments among the sciences is elaborated for the case of nanotechnology journals.

Theme

Citation indexing

0.14645365 = product of:
  0.21968046 = sum of:
    0.17178178 = weight(_text_:citation in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17178178 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.73270106 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
    0.047898684 = product of:
      0.09579737 = sum of:
        0.09579737 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09579737 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

Theme

Citation indexing

0.13932842 = product of:
  0.20899262 = sum of:
    0.19205788 = weight(_text_:citation in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19205788 = score(doc=2743,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.8191847 = fieldWeight in 2743, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2743)
    0.016934741 = product of:
      0.033869483 = sum of:
        0.033869483 = weight(_text_:22 in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033869483 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2743, 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=2743)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In this article, we performed a comparative study to investigate the performance of methods for detecting emerging research fronts. Three types of citation network, co-citation, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation, were tested in three research domains, gallium nitride (GaN), complex network (CNW), and carbon nanotube (CNT). Three types of citation network were constructed for each research domain, and the papers in those domains were divided into clusters to detect the research front. We evaluated the performance of each type of citation network in detecting a research front by using the following measures of papers in the cluster: visibility, measured by normalized cluster size, speed, measured by average publication year, and topological relevance, measured by density. Direct citation, which could detect large and young emerging clusters earlier, shows the best performance in detecting a research front, and co-citation shows the worst. Additionally, in direct citation networks, the clustering coefficient was the largest, which suggests that the content similarity of papers connected by direct citations is the greatest and that direct citation networks have the least risk of missing emerging research domains because core papers are included in the largest component.

Date

22. 3.2009 17:52:50

0.13256171 = product of:
  0.19884256 = sum of:
    0.17852087 = weight(_text_:citation in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17852087 = score(doc=201,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.7614453 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
    0.02032169 = product of:
      0.04064338 = sum of:
        0.04064338 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04064338 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.

Date

3. 1.2007 17:22:03

Theme

Citation indexing

0.13152611 = product of:
  0.19728917 = sum of:
    0.14876738 = weight(_text_:citation in 2690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14876738 = score(doc=2690,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.6345377 = fieldWeight in 2690, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2690)
    0.048521794 = product of:
      0.09704359 = sum of:
        0.09704359 = weight(_text_:reports in 2690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09704359 = score(doc=2690,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.4309526 = fieldWeight in 2690, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

I propose an approach to classifying scientific networks in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations of the ISI Journal Citation Reports using the affinity propagation method. This algorithm is applied to obtain the classification of SCI and SSCI journals by minimizing intracategory journal-journal (J-J) distances in the database, where distance between journals is calculated from the similarity of their annual citation patterns with a cutoff parameter, t, to restrain the maximal J-J distance. As demonstrated in the classification of SCI journals, classification of scientific networks with different resolution is possible by choosing proper values of t. Twenty journal categories in SCI are found to be stable despite a difference of an order of magnitude in t. In our classifications, the level of specificity of a category can be found by looking at its value of RJ (the average distance of members of a category to its representative journal), and relatedness of category members is implied by the value of DJ-J (the average DJ-J distance within a category). Our results are consistent with the ISI classification scheme, and the level of relatedness for most categories in our classification is higher than their counterpart in the ISI classification scheme.

Object

Journal Citation Reports

0.1310556 = product of:
  0.19658339 = sum of:
    0.1629665 = weight(_text_:citation in 5046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1629665 = score(doc=5046,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.69510126 = fieldWeight in 5046, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5046)
    0.033616886 = product of:
      0.06723377 = sum of:
        0.06723377 = weight(_text_:reports in 5046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06723377 = score(doc=5046,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.29857272 = fieldWeight in 5046, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5046)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The aggregated citation relations among journals included in the Science Citation Index provide us with a huge matrix, which can be analyzed in various ways. By using principal component analysis or factor analysis, the factor scores can be employed as indicators of the position of the cited journals in the citing dimensions of the database. Unrotated factor scores are exact, and the extraction of principal components can be made stepwise because the principal components are independent. Rotation may be needed for the designation, but in the rotated solution a model is assumed. This assumption can be legitimated on pragmatic or theoretical grounds. Because the resulting outcomes remain sensitive to the assumptions in the model, an unambiguous classification is no longer possible in this case. However, the factor-analytic solutions allow us to test classifications against the structures contained in the database; in this article the process will be demonstrated for the delineation of a set of biochemistry journals.

Theme

Citation indexing

0.12917596 = product of:
  0.19376393 = sum of:
    0.17005529 = weight(_text_:citation in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17005529 = score(doc=5269,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.725337 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
    0.023708638 = product of:
      0.047417276 = sum of:
        0.047417276 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047417276 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This comparative case study of the diffusion and nondiffusion over time of eight theories in the social sciences uses citation analysis, citation context analysis, content analysis, surveys of editorial review boards, and personal interviews with theorists to develop a model of the theory functions that facilitate theory diffusion throughout specific intellectual communities. Unlike previous work on the diffusion of theories as innovations, this theory functions model differs in several important respects from the findings of previous studies that employed Everett Rogers's classic typology of innovation characteristics that promote diffusion. The model is also presented as a contribution to a more integrated theory of citation.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:20:01

Theme

Citation indexing

0.12917596 = product of:
  0.19376393 = sum of:
    0.17005529 = weight(_text_:citation in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17005529 = score(doc=156,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.725337 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
    0.023708638 = product of:
      0.047417276 = sum of:
        0.047417276 = weight(_text_:22 in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047417276 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The present study investigates the ability of a bibliometric based semi-automatic method to select candidate thesaurus terms from citation contexts. The method consists of document co-citation analysis, citation context analysis, and noun phrase parsing. The investigation is carried out within the specialty area of periodontology. The results clearly demonstrate that the method is able to select important candidate thesaurus terms within the chosen specialty area.

Date

8. 3.2007 19:55:22

0.12788905 = product of:
  0.19183357 = sum of:
    0.13580543 = weight(_text_:citation in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13580543 = score(doc=5915,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.57925105 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
    0.05602814 = product of:
      0.11205628 = sum of:
        0.11205628 = weight(_text_:reports in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11205628 = score(doc=5915,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.49762118 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Gibt es objektive Kriterien für die Bestellung und Abbestellung wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften? Wie lange sollte eine Bibliothek Periodikabestände benutzernah aufstellen? Kann ein Verlag -außer via Verkaufszahlen - auf Kriterien des Erfolgs seiner Zeitschriften zurückgreifen? Hat ein Autor eine Entscheidungsgrundlage, welcher Zeitschrift er seinen Artikel anbietet? Ist die Forschungsaktivität eines Instituts oder eines Wissenschaftlers über den Impact derjenigen Zeitschriftentitel zu evaluieren, die die Forschungsergebnisse drucken? Können die 'Journal Citation Reports (JCR) "des "Institute for Scientific Information" bei der Klärung solcher Fragen helfen? Sind die JCR ein nützliches oder gar ein notwendiges Hilfsmittel für Bibliotheken, für Verlage, für Wissenschaftsmanager und für wissenschaftliche Autoren? Die 'Journal Citation Reports" geben im Jahresrhythmus informetrische Kennzahlen wie die Zitationsrate, den Impact Factor, den Immediacy Index, die Halbwertszeit für eine Auswahl wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften an. Zusätzlich berichten sie darüber, weiche Zeitschriften weiche anderen Zeitschriften zitieren bzw. von diesen zitiert werden, so dass "Soziogramme" wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriftenkommunikation entstehen. Wir wollen am Beispiel des aktuellen Jahrgangs ( 1999) die JCR detailliert beschreiben, die Auswahlkriterien der Zeitschriften beleuchten, die verwendeten informetrischen Kennwerte - vor allem den Impact Factor - kritisch hinterfragen, um danach die Einsatzgebiete bei Bibliotheken, in der Wissenschaftsevaluation, bei Verlagen und bei Autoren zu diskutieren. Das Fazit sei vorweggenommen: Die JCR sind ein nicht umgehbares Hilfsmittel für die fokussierten Anwendungsbereiche. Sie sind mitnichten frei von Problemen. Wir schließen daher mit einigen Verbesserungsvorschlägen

Object

Journal Citation Reports

Theme

Citation indexing