Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04451194 = product of:
  0.13353582 = sum of:
    0.13353582 = sum of:
      0.09506226 = weight(_text_:group in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09506226 = score(doc=5270,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.43394202 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
      0.03847355 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03847355 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The age distribution of a country's scientists is an important element in the study of its research capacity. In this article we investigate the age distribution of Japanese scientists in order to find out whether major events such as World War II had an appreciable effect on its features. Data have been obtained from population censuses taken in Japan from 1970 to 1995. A comparison with the situation in China and the United States has been made. We find that the group of scientific researchers outside academia is dominated by the young: those younger than age 35. The personnel group in higher education, on the other hand, is dominated by the baby boomers: those who were born after World War II. Contrary to the Chinese situation we could not find any influence of major nondemographic events. The only influence we found was the increase in enrollment of university students after World War II caused by the reform of the Japanese university system. Female participation in the scientific and university systems in Japan, though still low, is increasing.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:26:24

0.013203094 = product of:
  0.03960928 = sum of:
    0.03960928 = product of:
      0.07921856 = sum of:
        0.07921856 = weight(_text_:group in 3334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07921856 = score(doc=3334,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.36161837 = fieldWeight in 3334, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3334)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Two forms of diffusion are studied: diffusion by publications, originating from the fact that a group publishes in different fields; and diffusion by citations, originating from the fact that the group's publications are cited in different fields. The first form of diffusion originates from an internal mechanism by which the group itself expands its own borders. The second form is partly driven by an external mechanism, in the sense that other fields use or become interested in the original group's expertise, and partly by the group's internal dynamism, in the sense that their articles, being published in more and more fields, have the potential to be applied in these other fields. In this contribution, we focus on basic counting measures as measures of diffusion. We introduce the notions of field diffusion breadth, defined as the number of for Essential Science Indicators (ESI) fields in which a set of articles is cited, and field diffusion intensity, defined as the number of citing articles in one particular ESI field. Combined effects of publications and citations can be measured by the Gini evenness measure. Our approach is illustrated by a study of mathematics at Tongji University (Shanghai, China).

0.013070395 = product of:
  0.039211184 = sum of:
    0.039211184 = product of:
      0.07842237 = sum of:
        0.07842237 = weight(_text_:group in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07842237 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.35798392 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Several characteristics of classical Lorenz curves make them unsuitable for the study of a group of topperformers. TOP-curves, defined as a kind of mirror image of TIP-curves used in poverty studies, are shown to possess the properties necessary for adequate empirical ranking of various data arrays, based on the properties of the highest performers (i.e., the core). TOP-curves and essential TOP-curves, also introduced in this article, simultaneously represent the incidence, intensity, and inequality among the top. It is shown that TOPdominance partial order, introduced in this article, is stronger than Lorenz dominance order. In this way, this article contributes to the study of cores, a central issue in applied informetrics.

0.010687098 = product of:
  0.032061294 = sum of:
    0.032061294 = product of:
      0.06412259 = sum of:
        0.06412259 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06412259 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, 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=4992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

14. 2.2012 12:53:22

0.009335997 = product of:
  0.028007988 = sum of:
    0.028007988 = product of:
      0.056015976 = sum of:
        0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056015976 = score(doc=816,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 816, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=816)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This essay provides an overview of journal evaluation indicators. It highlights the strengths and weaknesses of different indicators, together with their range of applicability. The definition of a "quality journal," different notions of impact factors, the meaning of ranking journals, and possible biases in citation databases are also discussed. Attention is given to using the journal impact in evaluation studies. The quality of a journal is a multifaceted notion. Journals can be evaluated for different purposes, and hence the results of such evaluation exercises can be quite different depending on the indicator(s) used. The impact factor, in one of its versions, is probably the most used indicator when it comes to gauging the visibility of a journal on the research front. Generalized impact factors, over periods longer than the traditional two years, are better indicators for the long-term value of a journal. As with all evaluation studies, care must be exercised when considering journal impact factors as a quality indicator. It seems best to use a whole battery of indicators (including several impact factors) and to change this group of indicators depending on the purpose of the evaluation study. Nowadays it goes without saying that special attention is paid to e-journals and specific indicators for this type of journal.

0.0064122584 = product of:
  0.019236775 = sum of:
    0.019236775 = product of:
      0.03847355 = sum of:
        0.03847355 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03847355 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170

0.0042748395 = product of:
  0.012824518 = sum of:
    0.012824518 = product of:
      0.025649035 = sum of:
        0.025649035 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025649035 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

9. 7.2006 10:22:35