-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.08
0.07517177 = product of:
0.15034354 = sum of:
0.15034354 = sum of:
0.06312799 = weight(_text_:b in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06312799 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.3914457 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.08721556 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08721556 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = 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)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:22:28
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006)
0.04
0.043679543 = product of:
0.087359086 = sum of:
0.087359086 = sum of:
0.04418959 = weight(_text_:b in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04418959 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
0.0431695 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0431695 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = 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)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:20:01
-
Wildner, B.: Web of Science - Scopus : Auf der Suche nach Zitierungen (2006)
0.02
0.02495974 = product of:
0.04991948 = sum of:
0.04991948 = sum of:
0.025251195 = weight(_text_:b in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025251195 = score(doc=5034,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 5034, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5034)
0.024668286 = weight(_text_:22 in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024668286 = score(doc=5034,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5034, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5034)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 4. 6.2006 17:22:15
-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.02
0.02495974 = product of:
0.04991948 = sum of:
0.04991948 = sum of:
0.025251195 = weight(_text_:b in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025251195 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.024668286 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024668286 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 9. 7.2006 10:22:35
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.02
0.024668286 = product of:
0.04933657 = sum of:
0.04933657 = product of:
0.09867314 = sum of:
0.09867314 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09867314 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 13. 7.2008 19:53:22
-
Cronin, B.: Bibliometrics and beyond : some thoughts on web-based citation analysis (2001)
0.02
0.022094795 = product of:
0.04418959 = sum of:
0.04418959 = product of:
0.08837918 = sum of:
0.08837918 = weight(_text_:b in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08837918 = score(doc=3890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.54802394 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Larsen, B.: Exploiting citation overlaps for information retrieval : generating a boomerang effect from the network of scientific papers (2002)
0.02
0.018938396 = product of:
0.037876792 = sum of:
0.037876792 = product of:
0.075753585 = sum of:
0.075753585 = weight(_text_:b in 4175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.075753585 = score(doc=4175,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.46973482 = fieldWeight in 4175, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4175)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
¬The Web of knowledge : Festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (2000)
0.02
0.015781997 = product of:
0.031563994 = sum of:
0.031563994 = product of:
0.06312799 = sum of:
0.06312799 = weight(_text_:b in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06312799 = score(doc=461,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.3914457 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Editor
- Cronin, B. u. H.B. Atkins
-
Cronin, B.: Semiotics and evaluative bibliometrics (2000)
0.02
0.015781997 = product of:
0.031563994 = sum of:
0.031563994 = product of:
0.06312799 = sum of:
0.06312799 = weight(_text_:b in 4542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06312799 = score(doc=4542,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.3914457 = fieldWeight in 4542, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4542)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002)
0.02
0.015417679 = product of:
0.030835358 = sum of:
0.030835358 = product of:
0.061670717 = sum of:
0.061670717 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061670717 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
-
Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009)
0.01
0.013082335 = product of:
0.02616467 = sum of:
0.02616467 = product of:
0.05232934 = sum of:
0.05232934 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05232934 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:22:35
-
Cronin, B.; Shaw, D.: Banking (on) different forms of symbolic capital (2002)
0.01
0.012625597 = product of:
0.025251195 = sum of:
0.025251195 = product of:
0.05050239 = sum of:
0.05050239 = weight(_text_:b in 1263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05050239 = score(doc=1263,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 1263, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1263)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Pudovkin, A.I.; Garfield, E.: Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals (2002)
0.01
0.011159557 = product of:
0.022319114 = sum of:
0.022319114 = product of:
0.044638228 = sum of:
0.044638228 = weight(_text_:b in 5220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044638228 = score(doc=5220,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.2767939 = fieldWeight in 5220, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5220)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Journal Citation Reports provides a classification of journals most heavily cited by a given journal and which most heavily cite that journal, but size variation is not taken into account. Pudovkin and Garfield suggest a procedure for meeting this difficulty. The relatedness of journal i to journal j is determined by the number of citations from journal i to journal j in a given year normalized by the product of the papers published in the j journal in that year times the number of references cited in the i journal in that year. A multiplier of ten to the sixth is suggested to bring the values into an easily perceptible range. While citations received depend upon the overall cumulative number of papers published by a journal, the current year is utilized since that data is available in JCR. Citations to current year papers would be quite low in most fields and thus not included. To produce the final index, the maximum of the A citing B value, and the B citing A value is chosen and used to indicate the closeness of the journals. The procedure is illustrated for the journal Genetics.
-
Zhao, D.; Strotmann, A.: Can citation analysis of Web publications better detect research fronts? (2007)
0.01
0.011159557 = product of:
0.022319114 = sum of:
0.022319114 = product of:
0.044638228 = sum of:
0.044638228 = weight(_text_:b in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044638228 = score(doc=471,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.2767939 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We present evidence that in some research fields, research published in journals and reported on the Web may collectively represent different evolutionary stages of the field, with journals lagging a few years behind the Web on average, and that a "two-tier" scholarly communication system may therefore be evolving. We conclude that in such fields, (a) for detecting current research fronts, author co-citation analyses (ACA) using articles published on the Web as a data source can outperform traditional ACAs using articles published in journals as data, and that (b) as a result, it is important to use multiple data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication for a complete picture of communication patterns. Our evidence stems from comparing the respective intellectual structures of the XML research field, a subfield of computer science, as revealed from three sets of ACA covering two time periods: (a) from the field's beginnings in 1996 to 2001, and (b) from 2001 to 2006. For the first time period, we analyze research articles both from journals as indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) and from the Web as indexed by CiteSeer. We follow up by an ACA of SCI data for the second time period. We find that most trends in the evolution of this field from the first to the second time period that we find when comparing ACA results from the SCI between the two time periods already were apparent in the ACA results from CiteSeer during the first time period.
-
Morris, S.A.; Yen, G.; Wu, Z.; Asnake, B.: Time line visualization of research fronts (2003)
0.01
0.011047398 = product of:
0.022094795 = sum of:
0.022094795 = product of:
0.04418959 = sum of:
0.04418959 = weight(_text_:b in 1452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04418959 = score(doc=1452,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 1452, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1452)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001)
0.01
0.010792375 = product of:
0.02158475 = sum of:
0.02158475 = product of:
0.0431695 = sum of:
0.0431695 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0431695 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 16.12.2001 14:01:22
-
Meho, L.I.; Sonnenwald, D.H.: Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance : a case study of Kurdish scholarship (2000)
0.01
0.009469198 = product of:
0.018938396 = sum of:
0.018938396 = product of:
0.037876792 = sum of:
0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037876792 = score(doc=4382,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between citation ranking and peer evaluation in assessing senior faculty research performance. Other studies typically derive their peer evaluation data directly from referees, often in the form of ranking. This study uses two additional sources of peer evaluation data: citation contant analysis and book review content analysis. 2 main questions are investigated: (a) To what degree does citation ranking correlate with data from citation content analysis, book reviews and peer ranking? (b) Is citation ranking a valif evaluative indicator of research performance of senior faculty members? This study shows that citation ranking can provide a valid indicator for comparative evaluation of senior faculty research performance
-
Chen, C.; Paul, R.J.; O'Keefe, B.: Fitting the Jigsaw of citation : information visualization in domain analysis (2001)
0.01
0.009469198 = product of:
0.018938396 = sum of:
0.018938396 = product of:
0.037876792 = sum of:
0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037876792 = score(doc=5766,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Gorraiz, J.: "Web of Science" versus "Scopus" oder das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliotheken (2006)
0.01
0.009469198 = product of:
0.018938396 = sum of:
0.018938396 = product of:
0.037876792 = sum of:
0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037876792 = score(doc=5021,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5021, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5021)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Bei den nachfolgenden Ausführungen handelt es sich um eine Zusammenstellung von Kommentaren, Vorträgen und Rückmeldungen von Kollegen bzw. Benutzern der Bibliothek sowie meine eigenen Erfahrungen als Vortragender im Universitätslehrgang "Master of Science", in dessen Rahmen ich das Fach "Bibliometrie" unterrichte. Schwerpunkt dieses Beitrages ist eine Zusammenfassung der Diskussion "Web of Science versus Scopus", die den aktuellen Stand der Kontroverse (vor allem an der Universität Wien im naturwissenschaftlichen Sektor) widerspiegelt. Hier ist zu bemerken, dass diese Problematik auch fachspezifisch ist und deswegen an jeder Universität bzw. in jedem Fachgebiet anders zu betrachten ist. Startpunkt meiner Betrachtung ist die allgemein akzeptierte Notwendigkeit des "Journal of Citation Reports (JCR)". Nur in diesem bibliometrischen Verzeichnis sind derzeit die "Impact Factors" zu finden, die als Grundlage jeder akademischen Evaluation dienen. Deswegen ist JCR heutzutage an jeder Universität mit naturwissenschaftlichen Fächern unentbehrlich und das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliothekare lautet nicht wirklich "Web of Science versus Scopus", sondern genaugesagt "Fallbeispiel A: Web of Science &JCR" oder "Fallbeispiel B: Scopus &JCR".
-
Mayr, P.; Walter, A.-K.: Abdeckung und Aktualität des Suchdienstes Google Scholar (2006)
0.01
0.009469198 = product of:
0.018938396 = sum of:
0.018938396 = product of:
0.037876792 = sum of:
0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 5131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037876792 = score(doc=5131,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5131, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5131)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Der Beitrag widmet sich dem neuen Google-Suchdienst Google Scholar. Die Suchmaschine, die ausschließlich wissenschaftliche Dokumente durchsuchen soll, wird mit ihren wichtigsten Funktionen beschrieben und anschließend einem empirischen Test unterzogen. Die durchgeführte Studie basiert auf drei Zeitschriftenlisten: Zeitschriften von Thomson Scientific, Open AccessZeitschriften des Verzeichnisses DOAJ und in der Fachdatenbank SOLIS ausgewertete sozialwissenschaftliche Zeitschriften. Die Abdeckung dieser Zeitschriften durch Google Scholar wurde per Abfrage der Zeitschriftentitel überprüft. Die Studie zeigt Defizite in der Abdeckung und Aktualität des Google Scholarlndex. Weiterhin macht die Studie deutlich, wer die wichtigsten Datenlieferanten für den neuen Suchdienst sind und welche wissenschaftlichen Informationsquellen im Index repräsentiert sind. Die Pluspunkte von Google Scholar liegen in seiner Einfachheit, seiner Suchgeschwindigkeit und letztendlich seiner Kostenfreiheit. Die Recherche in Fachdatenbanken kann Google Scholar trotz sichtbarer Potenziale (z. B. Zitationsanalyse) aber heute aufgrund mangelnder fachlicher Abdeckung und Transparenz nicht ersetzen.
