Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.030245846 = product of:
  0.060491692 = sum of:
    0.060491692 = sum of:
      0.024978451 = weight(_text_:2 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024978451 = score(doc=2646,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05242341 = queryNorm
          0.19293682 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
      0.03551324 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03551324 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05242341 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A statistical analysis of full text downloads of articles in Elsevier's ScienceDirect covering all disciplines reveals large differences in download frequencies, their skewness, and their correlation with Scopus-based citation counts, between disciplines, journals, and document types. Download counts tend to be 2 orders of magnitude higher and less skewedly distributed than citations. A mathematical model based on the sum of two exponentials does not adequately capture monthly download counts. The degree of correlation at the article level within a journal is similar to that at the journal level in the discipline covered by that journal, suggesting that the differences between journals are, to a large extent, discipline specific. Despite the fact that in all studied journals download and citation counts per article positively correlate, little overlap may exist between the set of articles appearing in the top of the citation distribution and that with the most frequently downloaded ones. Usage and citation leaks, bulk downloading, differences between reader and author populations in a subject field, the type of document or its content, differences in obsolescence patterns between downloads and citations, and different functions of reading and citing in the research process all provide possible explanations of differences between download and citation distributions.

Date

22. 1.2016 14:11:17

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.412-431

0.014987071 = product of:
  0.029974142 = sum of:
    0.029974142 = product of:
      0.059948284 = sum of:
        0.059948284 = weight(_text_:2 in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059948284 = score(doc=1119,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.4630484 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 42(1991), S.233-251(T.1); S.252-266(T.2)

0.012363703 = product of:
  0.024727406 = sum of:
    0.024727406 = product of:
      0.049454812 = sum of:
        0.049454812 = weight(_text_:2 in 2904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049454812 = score(doc=2904,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.38199544 = fieldWeight in 2904, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2904)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Scientometrics. 53(2002) no.2, S.171-193

0.0074935355 = product of:
  0.014987071 = sum of:
    0.014987071 = product of:
      0.029974142 = sum of:
        0.029974142 = weight(_text_:2 in 2941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029974142 = score(doc=2941,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.2315242 = fieldWeight in 2941, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The general aim of the article is to demonstrate how the results both of a structural analysis, and of a research performance assessment of a research field, can be enriched by combining elements of both into one integrated analysis. In addition, a procedure is discussed to select and analyse candidate benchmark institutes to assess the position of a particular resrach institute, in terms of both its cognitive orientation and its scientific production and impact at the international research front. The combined method is applied in an evaluation of the research scope and performance of the Interuniversity Centre for Micro-Electronics (IMEC) in Leuven, Belgium. On the basis of the comments of an international panel of experts in micro-electronics, the method was discussed in detail. We concluded that the method provides a detailed and useful picture of the position of the institute from an international perspective. Moreover, we found that the results of each of the 2 parts are an added value to the other

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.2, S.115-131

0.007064973 = product of:
  0.014129946 = sum of:
    0.014129946 = product of:
      0.028259892 = sum of:
        0.028259892 = weight(_text_:2 in 5073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028259892 = score(doc=5073,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.2182831 = fieldWeight in 5073, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5073)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Scientometrics. 35(1996) no.2, S.177-191

0.007064973 = product of:
  0.014129946 = sum of:
    0.014129946 = product of:
      0.028259892 = sum of:
        0.028259892 = weight(_text_:2 in 6692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028259892 = score(doc=6692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.2182831 = fieldWeight in 6692, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2. 3.1997 12:16:21

0.0052987295 = product of:
  0.010597459 = sum of:
    0.010597459 = product of:
      0.021194918 = sum of:
        0.021194918 = weight(_text_:2 in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021194918 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.16371232 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Gives an outline of a new bibliometric database based upon all articles published by authors from the Netherlands and processed during 1980-1993 by ISI for the SCI, SSCI and AHCI. Describes various types of information added to the database: data on articles citing the Dutch publications; detailed citation data on ISI journals and subfields; and a classification system of the main publishing organizations. Also gives an overview of the types of bibliometric indicators constructed. and discusses their relationship to indicators developed by other researchers in the field. Gives 2 applications to illustrate the potentials of the database and of the bibliometric indicators derived from it: one that represents a synthesis of 'classical' macro indicator studies on the one hand and bibliometric analyses of research groups on the other; and a second that gives for the first time a detailed analysis of a country's publications per institutional sector

0.0035324865 = product of:
  0.007064973 = sum of:
    0.007064973 = product of:
      0.014129946 = sum of:
        0.014129946 = weight(_text_:2 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014129946 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.10914155 = fieldWeight in 3882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Statistical relationships between downloads from ScienceDirect of documents in Elsevier's electronic journal Tetrahedron Letters and citations to these documents recorded in journals processed by the Institute for Scientific Information/Thomson Scientific for the Science Citation Index (SCI) are examined. A synchronous approach revealed that downloads and citations show different patterns of obsolescence of the used materials. The former can be adequately described by a model consisting of the sum of two negative exponential functions, representing an ephemeral and a residual factor, whereas the decline phase of the latter conforms to a simple exponential function with a decay constant statistically similar to that of the downloads residual factor. A diachronous approach showed that, as a cohort of documents grows older, its download distribution becomes more and more skewed, and more statistically similar to its citation distribution. A method is proposed to estimate the effect of citations upon downloads using obsolescence patterns. It was found that during the first 3 months after an article is cited, its number of downloads increased 25% compared to what one would expect this number to be if the article had not been cited. Moreover, more downloads of citing documents led to more downloads of the cited article through the citation. An analysis of 1,190 papers in the journal during a time interval of 2 years after publication date revealed that there is about one citation for every 100 downloads. A Spearman rank correlation coefficient of 0.22 was found between the number of times an article was downloaded and its citation rate recorded in the SCI. When initial downloads-defined as downloads made during the first 3 months after publication-were discarded, the correlation raised to 0.35. However, both outcomes measure the joint effect of downloads upon citation and that of citation upon downloads. Correlating initial downloads to later citation counts, the correlation coefficient drops to 0.11. Findings suggest that initial downloads and citations relate to distinct phases in the process of collecting and processing relevant scientific information that eventually leads to the publication of a journal article.

0.0035324865 = product of:
  0.007064973 = sum of:
    0.007064973 = product of:
      0.014129946 = sum of:
        0.014129946 = weight(_text_:2 in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014129946 = score(doc=1734,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.10914155 = fieldWeight in 1734, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.2, S.183-192