Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Liu, X."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Liu, X.; Kaza, S.; Zhang, P.; Chen, H.: Determining inventor status and its effect on knowledge diffusion : a study on nanotechnology literature from China, Russia, and India (2011) 0.00 
    0.002594287 = product of:
  0.005188574 = sum of:
    0.005188574 = product of:
      0.015565722 = sum of:
        0.015565722 = weight(_text_:h in 4468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015565722 = score(doc=4468,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045649286 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 4468, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4468)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  2. Cui, Y.; Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Wang, X.; Zhang, X.: Multidimensional scholarly citations : characterizing and understanding scholars' citation behaviors (2023) 0.00 
    0.002594287 = product of:
  0.005188574 = sum of:
    0.005188574 = product of:
      0.015565722 = sum of:
        0.015565722 = weight(_text_:h in 847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015565722 = score(doc=847,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045649286 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 847, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=847)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study investigates scholars' citation behaviors from a fine-grained perspective. Specifically, each scholarly citation is considered multidimensional rather than logically unidimensional (i.e., present or absent). Thirty million articles from PubMed were accessed for use in empirical research, in which a total of 15 interpretable features of scholarly citations were constructed and grouped into three main categories. Each category corresponds to one aspect of the reasons and motivations behind scholars' citation decision-making during academic writing. Using about 500,000 pairs of actual and randomly generated scholarly citations, a series of Random Forest-based classification experiments were conducted to quantitatively evaluate the correlation between each constructed citation feature and citation decisions made by scholars. Our experimental results indicate that citation proximity is the category most relevant to scholars' citation decision-making, followed by citation authority and citation inertia. However, big-name scholars whose h-indexes rank among the top 1% exhibit a unique pattern of citation behaviors-their citation decision-making correlates most closely with citation inertia, with the correlation nearly three times as strong as that of their ordinary counterparts. Hopefully, the empirical findings presented in this paper can bring us closer to characterizing and understanding the complex process of generating scholarly citations in academia.
  3. Liu, X.; Bu, Y.; Li, M.; Li, J.: Monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration (2024) 0.00 
    0.0025745581 = product of:
  0.0051491163 = sum of:
    0.0051491163 = product of:
      0.015447348 = sum of:
        0.015447348 = weight(_text_:d in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015447348 = score(doc=1202,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045649286 = queryNorm
            0.178113 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Collaboration across disciplines is a critical form of scientific collaboration to solve complex problems and make innovative contributions. This study focuses on the association between multidisciplinary collaboration measured by coauthorship in publications and the disruption of publications measured by the Disruption (D) index. We used authors' affiliations as a proxy of the disciplines to which they belong and categorized an article into multidisciplinary collaboration or monodisciplinary collaboration. The D index quantifies the extent to which a study disrupts its predecessors. We selected 13 journals that publish articles in six disciplines from the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) database and then constructed regression models with fixed effects and estimated the relationship between the variables. The findings show that articles with monodisciplinary collaboration are more disruptive than those with multidisciplinary collaboration. Furthermore, we uncovered the mechanism of how monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration by exploring the references of the sampled publications.

Authors

Years