Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

0.028503895 = product of:
  0.05700779 = sum of:
    0.05700779 = sum of:
      0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0040592253 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.052948564 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052948564 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

Type

a

0.012875464 = product of:
  0.025750928 = sum of:
    0.025750928 = sum of:
      0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007030784 = score(doc=3809,freq=24.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
              24.0 = termFreq=24.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.018720143 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018720143 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This year marks 350 years since the inaugural publications of both the Journal des Sçavans and the Philosophical Transactions, first published in 1665 and considered the birth of the peer-reviewed journal article. This form of scholarly communication has not only remained the dominant model for disseminating new knowledge (particularly for science and medicine), but has also increased substantially in volume. Derek de Solla Price - the "father of scientometrics" (Merton and Garfield, 1986, p. vii) - was the first to document the exponential increase in scientific journals and showed that "scientists have always felt themselves to be awash in a sea of the scientific literature" (Price, 1963, p. 15), as, for example, expressed at the 1948 Royal Society's Scientific Information Conference: Not for the first time in history, but more acutely than ever before, there was a fear that scientists would be overwhelmed, that they would be no longer able to control the vast amounts of potentially relevant material that were pouring forth from the world's presses, that science itself was under threat (Bawden and Robinson, 2008, p. 183).
One of the solutions to help scientists filter the most relevant publications and, thus, to stay current on developments in their fields during the transition from "little science" to "big science", was the introduction of citation indexing as a Wellsian "World Brain" (Garfield, 1964) of scientific information: It is too much to expect a research worker to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the bibliographic descendants of antecedent papers. It would not be excessive to demand that the thorough scholar check all papers that have cited or criticized such papers, if they could be located quickly. The citation index makes this check practicable (Garfield, 1955, p. 108). In retrospective, citation indexing can be perceived as a pre-social web version of crowdsourcing, as it is based on the concept that the community of citing authors outperforms indexers in highlighting cognitive links between papers, particularly on the level of specific ideas and concepts (Garfield, 1983). Over the last 50 years, citation analysis and more generally, bibliometric methods, have developed from information retrieval tools to research evaluation metrics, where they are presumed to make scientific funding more efficient and effective (Moed, 2006). However, the dominance of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has also led to significant goal displacement (Merton, 1957) and the oversimplification of notions of "research productivity" and "scientific quality", creating adverse effects such as salami publishing, honorary authorships, citation cartels, and misuse of indicators (Binswanger, 2015; Cronin and Sugimoto, 2014; Frey and Osterloh, 2006; Haustein and Larivière, 2015; Weingart, 2005).
Furthermore, the rise of the web, and subsequently, the social web, has challenged the quasi-monopolistic status of the journal as the main form of scholarly communication and citation indices as the primary assessment mechanisms. Scientific communication is becoming more open, transparent, and diverse: publications are increasingly open access; manuscripts, presentations, code, and data are shared online; research ideas and results are discussed and criticized openly on blogs; and new peer review experiments, with open post publication assessment by anonymous or non-anonymous referees, are underway. The diversification of scholarly production and assessment, paired with the increasing speed of the communication process, leads to an increased information overload (Bawden and Robinson, 2008), demanding new filters. The concept of altmetrics, short for alternative (to citation) metrics, was created out of an attempt to provide a filter (Priem et al., 2010) and to steer against the oversimplification of the measurement of scientific success solely on the basis of number of journal articles published and citations received, by considering a wider range of research outputs and metrics (Piwowar, 2013). Although the term altmetrics was introduced in a tweet in 2010 (Priem, 2010), the idea of capturing traces - "polymorphous mentioning" (Cronin et al., 1998, p. 1320) - of scholars and their documents on the web to measure "impact" of science in a broader manner than citations was introduced years before, largely in the context of webometrics (Almind and Ingwersen, 1997; Thelwall et al., 2005):
There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Type

a

0.0028047764 = product of:
  0.005609553 = sum of:
    0.005609553 = product of:
      0.011219106 = sum of:
        0.011219106 = weight(_text_:a in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011219106 = score(doc=244,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.

Type

a

0.0025370158 = product of:
  0.0050740317 = sum of:
    0.0050740317 = product of:
      0.010148063 = sum of:
        0.010148063 = weight(_text_:a in 1208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010148063 = score(doc=1208,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 1208, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1208)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Empirical evidence demonstrates that citations received by scholarly publications follow a pattern of preferential attachment, resulting in a power-law distribution. Such asymmetry has sparked significant debate regarding the use of citations for research evaluation. However, a consensus has yet to be established concerning the historical trends in citation concentration. Are citations becoming more concentrated in a small number of articles? Or have recent geopolitical and technical changes in science led to more decentralized distributions? This ongoing debate stems from a lack of technical clarity in measuring inequality. Given the variations in citation practices across disciplines and over time, it is crucial to account for multiple factors that can influence the findings. This article explores how reference-based and citation-based approaches, uncited articles, citation inflation, the expansion of bibliometric databases, disciplinary differences, and self-citations affect the evolution of citation concentration. Our results indicate a decreasing trend in citation concentration, primarily driven by a decline in uncited articles, which, in turn, can be attributed to the growing significance of Asia and Europe. On the whole, our findings clarify current debates on citation concentration and show that, contrary to a widely-held belief, citations are increasingly scattered.

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 3338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=3338,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 3338, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3338)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Since the publication of Robert K. Merton's theory of cumulative advantage in science (Matthew Effect), several empirical studies have tried to measure its presence at the level of papers, individual researchers, institutions, or countries. However, these studies seldom control for the intrinsic quality of papers or of researchers - better (however defined) papers or researchers could receive higher citation rates because they are indeed of better quality. Using an original method for controlling the intrinsic value of papers - identical duplicate papers published in different journals with different impact factors - this paper shows that the journal in which papers are published have a strong influence on their citation rates, as duplicate papers published in high-impact journals obtain, on average, twice as many citations as their identical counterparts published in journals with lower impact factors. The intrinsic value of a paper is thus not the only reason a given paper gets cited or not, there is a specific Matthew Effect attached to journals and this gives to papers published there an added value over and above their intrinsic quality.

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 1310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=1310,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 1310, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1310)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This work investigates recent claims that citation in a review article provokes a decline in a paper's later citation count; citations being given to the review article instead of the original paper. Using the Science Citation Index Expanded, we looked at the yearly percentages of lifetime citations of papers published in 1990 first cited in review articles in 1992 and 1995 in the field of biomedical research, and found that no significant change occurred after citation in a review article, regardless of the papers' citation activity or specialty. Additional comparison was done for papers from the field of clinical research, and this yielded no meaningful results to support the notion that review articles have any substantial effect on the citation count of the papers they review.

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 5388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=5388,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 5388, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5388)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the significant development of China's economy and scientific activity, its scientific publication activity is experiencing a period of rapid growth. However, measuring China's research output remains a challenge because Chinese scholars may publish their research in either international or national journals, yet no bibliometric database covers both the Chinese and English scientific literature. The purpose of this study is to compare Web of Science (WoS) with a Chinese bibliometric database in terms of authors and their performance, demonstrate the extent of the overlap between the two groups of Chinese most productive authors in both international and Chinese bibliometric databases, and determine how different disciplines may affect this overlap. The results of this study indicate that Chinese bibliometric databases, or a combination of WoS and Chinese bibliometric databases, should be used to evaluate Chinese research performance except in the few disciplines in which Chinese research performance could be assessed using WoS only.

Type

a

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=751,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article compares doctoral students' and faculty members' referencing behavior through the analysis of a large corpus of scientific articles. It shows that doctoral students tend to cite more documents per article than faculty members, and that the literature they cite is, on average, more recent. It also demonstrates that doctoral students cite a larger proportion of conference proceedings and journal articles than faculty members and faculty members are more likely to self-cite and cite theses than doctoral students. Analysis of the impact of cited journals indicates that in health research, faculty members tend to cite journals with slightly lower impact factors whereas in social sciences and humanities, faculty members cite journals with higher impact factors. Finally, it provides evidence that, in every discipline, faculty members tend to cite a higher proportion of clinical/applied research journals than doctoral students. This study contributes to the understanding of referencing patterns and age stratification in academia. Implications for understanding the information-seeking behavior of academics are discussed.

Type

a

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 2502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=2502,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2502, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2502)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This brief communication presents preliminary findings on automated Twitter accounts distributing links to scientific articles deposited on the preprint repository arXiv. It discusses the implication of the presence of such bots from the perspective of social media metrics (altmetrics), where mentions of scholarly documents on Twitter have been suggested as a means of measuring impact that is both broader and timelier than citations. Our results show that automated Twitter accounts create a considerable amount of tweets to scientific articles and that they behave differently than common social bots, which has critical implications for the use of raw tweet counts in research evaluation and assessment. We discuss some definitions of Twitter cyborgs and bots in scholarly communication and propose distinguishing between different levels of engagement-that is, differentiating between tweeting only bibliographic information to discussing or commenting on the content of a scientific work.

Type

a

0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 4943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=4943,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 4943, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4943)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In non-English-speaking countries the measurement of research output in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) using standard bibliographic databases suffers from a major drawback: the underrepresentation of articles published in local, non-English, journals. Using papers indexed (1) in a local database of periodicals (Érudit) and (2) in the Web of Science, assigned to the population of university professors in the province of Québec, this paper quantifies, for individual researchers and departments, the importance of papers published in local journals. It also analyzes differences across disciplines and between French-speaking and English-speaking universities. The results show that, while the addition of papers published in local journals to bibliometric measures has little effect when all disciplines are considered and for anglophone universities, it increases the output of researchers from francophone universities in the social sciences and humanities by almost a third. It also shows that there is very little relation, at the level of individual researchers or departments, between the output indexed in the Web of Science and the output retrieved from the Érudit database; a clear demonstration that the Web of Science cannot be used as a proxy for the "overall" production of SSH researchers in Québec. The paper concludes with a discussion on these disciplinary and language differences, as well as on their implications for rankings of universities.

Type

a

0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=284,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 284, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=284)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article analyzes the effects of publication language on the international scientific visibility of Russia using the Web of Science (WoS). Like other developing and transition countries, it is subject to a growing pressure to "internationalize" its scientific activities, which primarily means a shift to English as a language of scientific communication. But to what extent does the transition to English improve the impact of research? The case of Russia is of interest in this respect as the existence of many combinations of national journals and languages of publications (namely, Russian and English, including translated journals) provide a kind of natural I experiment to test the effects of language and publisher's country on the international visibility of research through citations as well as on the referencing practices of authors. Our analysis points to the conclusion that the production of original English-language papers in foreign journals is a more efficient strategy of internationalization than the mere translation of domestic journals. If the objective of a country is to maximize the international visibility of its scientific work, then the efforts should go into the promotion of publication in reputed English-language journals to profit from the added effect provided by the Matthew effect of these venues.

Type

a

0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=545,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 545, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=545)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The emphasis on research evaluation has brought scrutiny to the role of self-citations in the scholarly communication process. While author self-citations have been studied at length, little is known on national-level self-references (SRs). This paper analyses the citation context of national SRs, using the full-text of 184,859 papers published in PLOS journals. It investigates the differences between national SRs and nonself-references (NSRs) in terms of their in-text mention, presence in enumerations, and location features. For all countries, national SRs exhibit a higher level of engagement than NSRs. NSRs are more often found in enumerative citances than SRs, which suggests that researchers pay more attention to domestic than foreign studies. There are more mentions of national research in the methods section, which provides evidence that methodologies developed in a nation are more likely to be used by other researchers from the same nation. Publications from the United States are cited at a higher rate in each of the sections, indicating that the country still maintains a dominant position in science. On the whole, this paper contributes to a better understanding of the role of national SRs in the scholarly communication system, and how it varies across countries and over time.

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 2356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=2356,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2356, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2356)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

While several authors have argued that conference proceedings are an important source of scientific knowledge, the extent of their importance has not been measured in a systematic manner. This article examines the scientific impact and aging of conference proceedings compared to those of scientific literature in general. It shows that the relative importance of proceedings is diminishing over time and currently represents only 1.7% of references made in the natural sciences and engineering, and 2.5% in the social sciences and humanities. Although the scientific impact of proceedings is losing ground to other types of scientific literature in nearly all fields, it has grown from 8% of the references in engineering papers in the early 1980s to its current 10%. Proceedings play a particularly important role in computer sciences, where they account for close to 20% of the references. This article also shows that not unexpectedly, proceedings age faster than cited scientific literature in general. The evidence thus shows that proceedings have a relatively limited scientific impact, on average representing only about 2% of total citations, that their relative importance is shrinking, and that they become obsolete faster than the scientific literature in general.

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=3028,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 3028, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3028)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - Scientific abstracts reproduce only part of the information and the complexity of argumentation in a scientific article. The purpose of this paper provides a first analysis of the similarity between the text of scientific abstracts and the body of articles, using sentences as the basic textual unit. It contributes to the understanding of the structure of abstracts. Design/methodology/approach - Using sentence-based similarity metrics, the authors quantify the phenomenon of text re-use in abstracts and examine the positions of the sentences that are similar to sentences in abstracts in the introduction, methods, results and discussion structure, using a corpus of over 85,000 research articles published in the seven Public Library of Science journals. Findings - The authors provide evidence that 84 percent of abstract have at least one sentence in common with the body of the paper. Studying the distributions of sentences in the body of the articles that are re-used in abstracts, the authors show that there exists a strong relation between the rhetorical structure of articles and the zones that authors re-use when writing abstracts, with sentences mainly coming from the beginning of the introduction and the end of the conclusion. Originality/value - Scientific abstracts contain what is considered by the author(s) as information that best describe documents' content. This is a first study that examines the relation between the contents of abstracts and the rhetorical structure of scientific articles. The work might provide new insight for improving automatic abstracting tools as well as information retrieval approaches, in which text organization and structure are important features.

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 2035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=2035,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2035, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article provides the first historical analysis of the relationship between collaboration and scientific impact using three indicators of collaboration (number of authors, number of addresses, and number of countries) derived from articles published between 1900 and 2011. The results demonstrate that an increase in the number of authors leads to an increase in impact, from the beginning of the last century onward, and that this is not due simply to self-citations. A similar trend is also observed for the number of addresses and number of countries represented in the byline of an article. However, the constant inflation of collaboration since 1900 has resulted in diminishing citation returns: Larger and more diverse (in terms of institutional and country affiliation) teams are necessary to realize higher impact. The article concludes with a discussion of the potential causes of the impact gain in citations of collaborative papers.

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=2337,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study applied LDA (latent Dirichlet allocation) and regression analysis to conduct a lead-lag analysis to identify different topic evolution patterns between preprints and papers from arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS) in astrophysics over the last 20 years (1992-2011). Fifty topics in arXiv and WoS were generated using an LDA algorithm and then regression models were used to explain 4 types of topic growth patterns. Based on the slopes of the fitted equation curves, the paper redefines the topic trends and popularity. Results show that arXiv and WoS share similar topics in a given domain, but differ in evolution trends. Topics in WoS lose their popularity much earlier and their durations of popularity are shorter than those in arXiv. This work demonstrates that open access preprints have stronger growth tendency as compared to traditional printed publications.

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 1357) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=1357,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 1357, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1357)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Despite a very large number of studies on the aging and obsolescence of scientific literature, no study has yet measured, over a very long time period, the changes in the rates at which scientific literature becomes obsolete. This article studies the evolution of the aging phenomenon and, in particular, how the age of cited literature has changed over more than 100 years of scientific activity. It shows that the average and median ages of cited literature have undergone several changes over the period. Specifically, both World War I and World War II had the effect of significantly increasing the age of the cited literature. The major finding of this article is that contrary to a widely held belief, the age of cited material has risen continuously since the mid-1960s. In other words, during that period, researchers were relying on an increasingly old body of literature. Our data suggest that this phenomenon is a direct response to the steady-state dynamics of modern science that followed its exponential growth; however, we also have observed that online preprint archives such as arXiv have had the opposite effect in some subfields.

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 3316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=3316,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3316, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3316)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article analyzes the effect of interdisciplinarity on the scientific impact of individual articles. Using all the articles published in Web of Science in 2000, we define the degree of interdisciplinarity of a given article as the percentage of its cited references made to journals of other disciplines. We show that although for all disciplines combined there is no clear correlation between the level of interdisciplinarity of articles and their citation rates, there are nonetheless some disciplines in which a higher level of interdisciplinarity is related to a higher citation rates. For other disciplines, citations decline as interdisciplinarity grows. One characteristic is visible in all disciplines: Highly disciplinary and highly interdisciplinary articles have a low scientific impact. This suggests that there might be an optimum of interdisciplinarity beyond which the research is too dispersed to find its niche and under which it is too mainstream to have high impact. Finally, the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact is highly determined by the citation characteristics of the disciplines involved: Articles citing citation-intensive disciplines are more likely to be cited by those disciplines and, hence, obtain higher citation scores than would articles citing non-citation-intensive disciplines.

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=3162,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

MELIBEA is a directory of institutional open-access policies for research output that uses a composite formula with eight weighted conditions to estimate the "strength" of open access (OA) mandates (registered in ROARMAP). We analyzed total Web of Science-(WoS)-indexed publication output in years 2011-2013 for 67 institutions in which OA was mandated to estimate the mandates' effectiveness: How well did the MELIBEA score and its individual conditions predict what percentage of the WoS-indexed articles is actually deposited in each institution's OA repository, and when? We found a small but significant positive correlation (0.18) between the MELIBEA "strength" score and deposit percentage. For three of the eight MELIBEA conditions (deposit timing, internal use, and opt-outs), one value of each was strongly associated with deposit percentage or latency ([a] immediate deposit required; [b] deposit required for performance evaluation; [c] unconditional opt-out allowed for the OA requirement but no opt-out for deposit requirement). When we updated the initial values and weights of the MELIBEA formula to reflect the empirical association we had found, the score's predictive power for mandate effectiveness doubled (0.36). There are not yet enough OA mandates to test further mandate conditions that might contribute to mandate effectiveness, but the present findings already suggest that it would be productive for existing and future mandates to adopt the three identified conditions so as to maximize their effectiveness, and thereby the growth of OA.

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=2497,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2497, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2497)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The organization of scientific papers typically follows a standardized pattern, the well-known IMRaD structure (introduction, methods, results, and discussion). Using the full text of 45,000 papers published in the PLoS series of journals as a case study, this paper investigates, from the viewpoint of bibliometrics, how references are distributed along the structure of scientific papers as well as the age of these cited references. Once the sections of articles are realigned to follow the IMRaD sequence, the position of cited references along the text of articles is invariant across all PLoS journals, with the introduction and discussion accounting for most of the references. It also provides evidence that the age of cited references varies by section, with older references being found in the methods and more recent references in the discussion. These results provide insight into the different roles citations have in the scholarly communication process.

Type

a