Search (300 results, page 1 of 15)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998) 0.08 
    0.08145759 = product of:
  0.122186385 = sum of:
    0.07904324 = weight(_text_:f in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07904324 = score(doc=3690,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17949225 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04503309 = queryNorm
        0.4403713 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
    0.043143146 = product of:
      0.08628629 = sum of:
        0.08628629 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08628629 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15769821 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04503309 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, 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=3690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:22:35
  2. Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008) 0.07 
    0.069404334 = product of:
  0.1041065 = sum of:
    0.05589201 = weight(_text_:f in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05589201 = score(doc=1934,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17949225 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04503309 = queryNorm
        0.31138954 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
    0.048214495 = sum of:
      0.017707683 = weight(_text_:von in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017707683 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12014598 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04503309 = queryNorm
          0.14738473 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
      0.030506812 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030506812 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15769821 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04503309 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Um sich einer Antwort auf die Frage anzunähern, welche Bedeutung der Nachlass eines Wissenschaftlers wie jener Paul F. Lazarsfelds (mit zahlreichen noch unveröffentlichten Schriften) für die aktuelle Forschung haben könne, kann untersucht werden, wie häufig dieser Wissenschaftler zitiert wird. Wenn ein Autor zitiert wird, wird er auch genutzt. Wird er über einen langen Zeitraum oft genutzt, ist vermutlich auch die Auseinandersetzung mit seinem Nachlass von Nutzen. Außerdem kann aufgrund der Zitierungen festgestellt werden, was aus dem Lebenswerk eines Wissenschaftlers für die aktuelle Forschung relevant erscheint. Daraus können die vordringlichen Fragestellungen in der Bearbeitung des Nachlasses abgeleitet werden. Die Aufgabe für die folgende Untersuchung lautete daher: Wie oft wird Paul F. Lazarsfeld zitiert? Dabei interessierte auch: Wer zitiert wo? Die Untersuchung wurde mit Hilfe der Meta-Datenbank "ISI Web of Knowledge" durchgeführt. In dieser wurde im "Web of Science" mit dem Werkzeug "Cited Reference Search" nach dem zitierten Autor (Cited Author) "Lazarsfeld P*" gesucht. Diese Suche ergab 1535 Referenzen (References). Werden alle Referenzen gewählt, führt dies zu 4839 Ergebnissen (Results). Dabei wurden die Datenbanken SCI-Expanded, SSCI und A&HCI verwendet. Bei dieser Suche wurden die Publikationsjahre 1941-2008 analysiert. Vor 1956 wurden allerdings nur sehr wenige Zitate gefunden: 1946 fünf, ansonsten maximal drei, 1942-1944 und 1949 überhaupt keines. Zudem ist das Jahr 2008 noch lange nicht zu Ende. (Es gab jedoch schon vor Ende März 24 Zitate!)
    Date
    22. 6.2008 12:54:12
  3. Schael, F.: Wie lange wird Literatur nachgefragt? : Eine Untersuchung zu Alterung und Nutzung von Literatur (2003) 0.05 
    0.04578344 = product of:
  0.06867516 = sum of:
    0.04742594 = weight(_text_:f in 1423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04742594 = score(doc=1423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17949225 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04503309 = queryNorm
        0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 1423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1423)
    0.021249218 = product of:
      0.042498436 = sum of:
        0.042498436 = weight(_text_:von in 1423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042498436 = score(doc=1423,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.12014598 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04503309 = queryNorm
            0.35372335 = fieldWeight in 1423, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    In einer industriellen IuD-Stelle konnte auf der Basis vorhandener Langzeitstatistiken die funktionale Abhängigkeit der Literaturnutzung vom Alter der Literatur - in Form von Kopien aus Fachzeitschriften und von SAE-Berichten - mathematisch beschrieben und für die Praxis anwendbar gemacht werden. Grundlagen und Ermittlung der Basisdaten, deren Aufbereitung für eine mathematische Verarbeitung und ihre Darstellung als logarithmische Funktion werden erläutert. Die aus der Regelungstechnik bekannte Sprungantwortfunktion ist von der Sache her anwendbar und beschreibt das Phänomen plausibel. Die für ausgewählte Jahrgänge der betrachteten Literaturarten gefundenen Gleichungen werden in ihren Parametern diskutiert. Anhand der Resultate der Arbeit ergibt sich die Möglichkeit, eine Alterungskurve mit nur einer Zählung (statt der drei mathematisch erforderlichen) abzuschätzen. Ein Vergleich mit derBestimmung der Alterung der Nutzung auf der Basis der Zitatenanalyse zeigt, dass beide Verfahren kompatibel sind.
  4. Rötzer, F.: Bindestriche in Titeln von Artikeln schaden der wissenschaftlichen Reputation (2019) 0.04 
    0.04388554 = product of:
  0.06582831 = sum of:
    0.04742594 = weight(_text_:f in 5697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04742594 = score(doc=5697,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17949225 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04503309 = queryNorm
        0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 5697, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5697)
    0.018402364 = product of:
      0.03680473 = sum of:
        0.03680473 = weight(_text_:von in 5697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03680473 = score(doc=5697,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.12014598 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04503309 = queryNorm
            0.30633342 = fieldWeight in 5697, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5697)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Content
    "Aber warum werden Titel mit Bindestrichen weniger häufig zitiert? Die Wissenschaftler vermuten, dass Autoren, wenn sie einen Artikel zitieren, möglicherweise übersehen, Bindestriche anzugeben. Dann kann in den Datenbanken keine Verlinkung mit dem Artikel mit Bindestrichen im Titel hergestellt werden, weswegen der Zitationsindex falsch wird. Das Problem scheint sich bei mehreren Bindestrichen zu verstärken, die die Irrtumshäufigkeit der Menschen erhöhen. Dass die Länge der Titel etwas mit der Zitationshäufigkeit zu tun hat, bestreiten die Wissenschaftler. Längere Titel würden einfach mit höherer Wahrscheinlichkeit mehr Bindestriche enthalten - und deswegen weniger häufig wegen der Bindestrichfehler zitiert werden. Und Artikel mit Bindestrichen sollen auch den JIF von Wissenschaftsjournalen senken."
    Source
    https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Bindestriche-in-Titeln-von-Artikeln-schaden-der-wissenschaftlichen-Reputation-4456177.html
  5. Wan, X.; Liu, F.: Are all literature citations equally important? : automatic citation strength estimation and its applications (2014) 0.04 
    0.04382002 = product of:
  0.06573003 = sum of:
    0.04742594 = weight(_text_:f in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04742594 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17949225 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04503309 = queryNorm
        0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
    0.018304085 = product of:
      0.03660817 = sum of:
        0.03660817 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03660817 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15769821 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04503309 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:12:35
  6. Kronegger, L.; Mali, F.; Ferligoj, A.; Doreian, P.: Classifying scientific disciplines in Slovenia : a study of the evolution of collaboration structures (2015) 0.04 
    0.04382002 = product of:
  0.06573003 = sum of:
    0.04742594 = weight(_text_:f in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04742594 = score(doc=1639,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17949225 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04503309 = queryNorm
        0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 1639, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1639)
    0.018304085 = product of:
      0.03660817 = sum of:
        0.03660817 = weight(_text_:22 in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03660817 = score(doc=1639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15769821 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04503309 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1639, 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=1639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    21. 1.2015 14:55:22
  7. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.04 
    0.04382002 = product of:
  0.06573003 = sum of:
    0.04742594 = weight(_text_:f in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04742594 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17949225 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04503309 = queryNorm
        0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
    0.018304085 = product of:
      0.03660817 = sum of:
        0.03660817 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03660817 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15769821 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04503309 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    28. 7.2018 10:00:22
  8. Narin, F.; Moll, J.K.: Bibliometrics (1977) 0.04 
    0.042156395 = product of:
  0.12646918 = sum of:
    0.12646918 = weight(_text_:f in 1085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12646918 = score(doc=1085,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17949225 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04503309 = queryNorm
        0.7045941 = fieldWeight in 1085, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1085)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  9. Carpenter, M.P.; Narin, F.: ¬The adequacy of Science Citation Index (SCI) as an indicator of international scientific activity (1981) 0.04 
    0.036886845 = product of:
  0.11066053 = sum of:
    0.11066053 = weight(_text_:f in 6680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11066053 = score(doc=6680,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17949225 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04503309 = queryNorm
        0.6165198 = fieldWeight in 6680, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6680)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  10. Cerda-Cosme, R.; Méndez, E.: Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19 : a first approach (2023) 0.04 
    0.036516685 = product of:
  0.054775026 = sum of:
    0.03952162 = weight(_text_:f in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03952162 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17949225 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04503309 = queryNorm
        0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
    0.015253406 = product of:
      0.030506812 = sum of:
        0.030506812 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030506812 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15769821 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04503309 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 916, 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=916)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    During the coronavirus pandemic, changes in the way science is done and shared occurred, which motivates meta-research to help understand science communication in crises and improve its effectiveness. The objective is to study how many Spanish scientific papers on COVID-19 published during 2020 share their research data. Qualitative and descriptive study applying nine attributes: (a) availability, (b) accessibility, (c) format, (d) licensing, (e) linkage, (f) funding, (g) editorial policy, (h) content, and (i) statistics. We analyzed 1,340 papers, 1,173 (87.5%) did not have research data. A total of 12.5% share their research data of which 2.1% share their data in repositories, 5% share their data through a simple request, 0.2% do not have permission to share their data, and 5.2% share their data as supplementary material. There is a small percentage that shares their research data; however, it demonstrates the researchers' poor knowledge on how to properly share their research data and their lack of knowledge on what is research data.
    Date
    21. 3.2023 19:22:02
  11. Czepel, R.: ¬Die Geographie der wissenschaftlichen Zitierung (2003) 0.03 
    0.03264481 = product of:
  0.048967212 = sum of:
    0.031617295 = weight(_text_:f in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031617295 = score(doc=2273,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17949225 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04503309 = queryNorm
        0.17614852 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
    0.017349916 = product of:
      0.03469983 = sum of:
        0.03469983 = weight(_text_:von in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03469983 = score(doc=2273,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.12014598 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04503309 = queryNorm
            0.28881392 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Ein britischer Forscher hat sich die Mühe gemacht, die geografischen Muster der Zitierungen von 1981 bis zur Gegenwart freizulegen. Das Ergebnis: Die publizistische Wahrnehmung ist in der Wissenschaft äußerst ungleich verteilt. Die USA dominieren mit großem Abstand vor dem Rest der WeIt. Und auch dort konzentrieren sich die Verweise auf einige wenige Ballungsräume der Forschung. Michael Batty vom Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis in London bediente sich für seine Analyse der Datenbank "ISIHighlyCited.com" (http: //www.isihighlycited.com/), in der Forscher aus verschiedenen Disziplinen aufgelistet werden, die die weltweit meisten Zitate auf sich gezogen haben. In diesen Ranglisten nehmen die akademischen Edelschmieden aus den USA etwa jene Rolle ein, die Österreichische Athleten im Alpinschisport besetzen. Einzig der Forschungsraum London kann mit der Konkurrenz aus Übersee halbwegs mithalten. Der Artikel "Citation Geography: It's About Location" von Michael Batty erschien im Magazin "The Scientist" (Band 17, Heft 16/10, Ausgabe vom 25.8.03; http://www.thescientist.com/yr2003/aug/opinion 030825.html). Die Zeitschrift ist nach individueller Registrierung frei zugänglich. Der Homepage des Autors http: //www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/citations/ können weitere Details entnommen werden. Ob die Anzahl derZitate auch etwas über die wissenschaftliche Qualität aussagt, ist genau so Gegenstand von Diskussionen, wie dies etwa bei den "Impact-Faktoren" von Journalen der Fall ist (vgl. "Kann wissenschaftliche Qualität gemessen werden?", http://science.orf.at/science/news/58648). Ganz wertfrei kann man die ISI-Daten jedenfalls dazu verwenden, um herauszufinden, in welchem Land, in welcher Stadt und in welcher Institution die meist zitierten Forscher dieses Erdballs sitzen. Das Ergebnis dieser von Michael Batty erstellten "Geografie derwissenschaftlichen Zitierung" ist eindeutig: Einige Wenige ziehen den Großteil der publizistischen Aufmerksamkeit auf sich - und lassen für den Rest nur wenig über. Diese Aussage gilt gleichermaßen für Ranglisten von Städten, Institutionen und Ländern. Und: In allen drei Fällen kommen die Spitzereiter aus dem US-amerikanischen Raum.
    Content
    Top Ten der meistzitierten Forscher nach Institutionen: Harvard - Stanford - UC, San Diego - MIT - National Cancer Institute - UC, San Francisco - Cornell - UC, Berkeley - University College, London - CalTech Top Ten der meistzitierten Forscher nach Ländern:USA - GB - BRD - CND - Japan - F - CH - S - I - AUS - AU
  12. Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006) 0.03 
    0.03262796 = product of:
  0.09788387 = sum of:
    0.09788387 = sum of:
      0.049072973 = weight(_text_:von in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049072973 = score(doc=77,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.12014598 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04503309 = queryNorm
          0.40844458 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.0488109 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0488109 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15769821 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04503309 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Die Webometrie ist ein Teilbereich der Informationswissenschaft der zur Zeit auf die Analyse von Linkstrukturen konzentriert ist. Er ist stark von der Zitationsanalyse geprägt, wie der empirische Schwerpunkt auf der Wissenschaftsanalyse zeigt. In diesem Beitrag diskutieren wir die Nutzung linkbasierter Maße in einem breiten informetrischen Kontext und bewerten verschiedene Verfahren, auch im Hinblick auf ihr generelles Potentialfür die Sozialwissenschaften. Dabei wird auch ein allgemeiner Rahmenfür Linkanalysen mit den erforderlichen Arbeitsschritten vorgestellt. Abschließend werden vielversprechende zukünftige Anwendungsfelder der Webometrie benannt, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Analyse von Blogs.
    Date
    4.12.2006 12:12:22
  13. Ufen, F.: ¬Das System als Roman : Eine Regelmäßigkeit der Worthäufigkeit passt bemerkenswerterweise auch auf Unternehmensgrößen und die Größe von Städten (2015) 0.03 
    0.032250308 = product of:
  0.04837546 = sum of:
    0.03952162 = weight(_text_:f in 2050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03952162 = score(doc=2050,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17949225 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04503309 = queryNorm
        0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 2050, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2050)
    0.008853842 = product of:
      0.017707683 = sum of:
        0.017707683 = weight(_text_:von in 2050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017707683 = score(doc=2050,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12014598 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04503309 = queryNorm
            0.14738473 = fieldWeight in 2050, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2050)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  14. Bartolucci, F.: On a possible decomposition of the h-index. (2012) 0.03 
    0.031617295 = product of:
  0.09485188 = sum of:
    0.09485188 = weight(_text_:f in 454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09485188 = score(doc=454,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17949225 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04503309 = queryNorm
        0.52844554 = fieldWeight in 454, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=454)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  15. Freistetter, F.: Warum jeder (fast) jeden kennt (2017) 0.03 
    0.031617295 = product of:
  0.09485188 = sum of:
    0.09485188 = weight(_text_:f in 3679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09485188 = score(doc=3679,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17949225 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04503309 = queryNorm
        0.52844554 = fieldWeight in 3679, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3679)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  16. Jacso, P.: Testing the calculation of a realistic h-index in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science for F. W. Lancaster (2008) 0.03 
    0.029457677 = product of:
  0.08837303 = sum of:
    0.08837303 = weight(_text_:f in 5586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08837303 = score(doc=5586,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17949225 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04503309 = queryNorm
        0.4923501 = fieldWeight in 5586, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5586)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This paper focuses on the practical limitations in the content and software of the databases that are used to calculate the h-index for assessing the publishing productivity and impact of researchers. To celebrate F. W. Lancaster's biological age of seventy-five, and "scientific age" of forty-five, this paper discusses the related features of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS), and demonstrates in the latter how a much more realistic and fair h-index can be computed for F. W. Lancaster than the one produced automatically. Browsing and searching the cited reference index of the 1945-2007 edition of WoS, which in my estimate has over a hundred million "orphan references" that have no counterpart master records to be attached to, and "stray references" that cite papers which do have master records but cannot be identified by the matching algorithm because of errors of omission and commission in the references of the citing works, can bring up hundreds of additional cited references given to works of an accomplished author but are ignored in the automatic process of calculating the h-index. The partially manual process doubled the h-index value for F. W. Lancaster from 13 to 26, which is a much more realistic value for an information scientist and professor of his stature.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft 'The Influence of F. W. Lancaster on Information Science and on Libraries', das als Festschrift für F.W. Lancaster deklariert ist.
  17. Tonta, Y.; Ünal, Y.: Scatter of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in document delivery requests (2005) 0.03 
    0.029213347 = product of:
  0.04382002 = sum of:
    0.031617295 = weight(_text_:f in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031617295 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17949225 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04503309 = queryNorm
        0.17614852 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
    0.012202725 = product of:
      0.02440545 = sum of:
        0.02440545 = weight(_text_:22 in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02440545 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15769821 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04503309 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3271, 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=3271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    In this paper we investigate the scattering of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in more than 137,000 document delivery requests submitted to a national document delivery service. We first summarize the major findings of the study with regards to the performance of the service. We then identify the "core" journals from which article requests were satisfied and address the following research questions: (a) Does the distribution of (core) journals conform to the Bradford's Law of Scattering? (b) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and impact factors, journals with high impact factors being used more often than the rest? (c) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being used more often than the rest? (d) What is the median age of use (half-life) of requested articles in general? (e) Do requested articles that appear in core journals get obsolete more slowly? (f) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and journal impact factors, journals with high impact factors being obsolete more slowly? (g) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being obsolete more slowly? Based an the analysis of findings, we found that the distribution of highly and moderately used journal titles conform to Bradford's Law. The median age of use was 8 years for all requested articles. Ninety percent of the articles requested were 21 years of age or younger. Articles that appeared in 168 core journal titles seem to get obsolete slightly more slowly than those of all titles. We observed no statistically significant correlations between the frequency of journal use and ISI journal impact factors, and between the frequency of journal use and ISI- (Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA) cited half-lives for the most heavily used 168 core journal titles. There was a weak correlation between usage of journals and ISI-reported total citation counts. No statistically significant relationship was found between median age of use and journal impact factors and between median age of use and total citation counts. There was a weak negative correlation between ISI journal impact factors and cited half-lives of 168 core journals, and a weak correlation between ISI citation halflives and use half-lives of core journals. No correlation was found between cited half-lives of 168 core journals and their corresponding total citation counts as reported by ISI. Findings of the current study are discussed along with those of other studies.
    Date
    20. 3.2005 10:54:22
  18. Katsaros, D.; Akritidis, L.; Bozanis, P.: ¬The f index : quantifying the impact of coterminal citations on scientists' ranking (2009) 0.03 
    0.027381383 = product of:
  0.08214415 = sum of:
    0.08214415 = weight(_text_:f in 2805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08214415 = score(doc=2805,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17949225 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04503309 = queryNorm
        0.45764732 = fieldWeight in 2805, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2805)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Designing fair and unbiased metrics to measure the level of excellence of a scientist is a very significant task because they recently also have been taken into account when deciding faculty promotions, when allocating funds, and so on. Despite criticism that such scientometric evaluators are confronted with, they do have their merits, and efforts should be spent to arm them with robustness and resistance to manipulation. This article aims at initiating the study of the coterminal citations - their existence and implications - and presents them as a generalization of self-citations and of co-citation; it also shows how they can be used to capture any manipulation attempts against scientometric indicators, and finally presents a new index, the f index, that takes into account the coterminal citations. The utility of the new index is validated using the academic production of a number of esteemed computer scientists. The results confirm that the new index can discriminate those individuals whose work penetrates many scientific communities.
    Object
    f-Index
  19. Jovanovic, M.: ¬Eine kleine Frühgeschichte der Bibliometrie (2012) 0.03 
    0.02636887 = product of:
  0.07910661 = sum of:
    0.07910661 = sum of:
      0.042498436 = weight(_text_:von in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042498436 = score(doc=326,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.12014598 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04503309 = queryNorm
          0.35372335 = fieldWeight in 326, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=326)
      0.03660817 = weight(_text_:22 in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03660817 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15769821 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04503309 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 326, 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=326)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    In der Bibliometrie werden meist zwei Größen vermessen: die Anzahl von Publikationen und Zitationen. Publiziert und zitiert haben Menschen bereits sehr früh in der Geschichte. Schon in der Antike sind bei überlieferten Werken Zitationen zu finden. Der englische Begriff "Bibliometrics" selbst wurde aber erst 1969 definiert. In dem folgenden Artikel wird eine kleine Frühgeschichte der Bibliometrie, einer Unterdisziplin der Informationswissenschaft, bis zu diesem wichtigen Jahr anhand von beispielhaften Studien und Arbeiten dargestellt. Es wird auf die Anfänge von Publikationen und Zitationen und den fachlichen Rahmen der Bibliometrie eingegangen. Der Ursprung der Bibliometriegeschichte selbst wird von unterschiedlichen Autoren unterschiedlich früh angesetzt. Die verschiedenen Ansätze werden vorgestellt und diskutiert. Der Artikel schließt mit einer Beschreibung der wachsenden Bedeutung dieses Fachs im heutigen Informationszeitalter.
    Date
    22. 7.2012 19:23:32
  20. Haustein, S.: Scientific interactions and research evaluation : from bibliometrics to Altmetrics (2015) 0.03 
    0.026347747 = product of:
  0.07904324 = sum of:
    0.07904324 = weight(_text_:f in 2981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07904324 = score(doc=2981,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17949225 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04503309 = queryNorm
        0.4403713 = fieldWeight in 2981, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2981)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Re:inventing information science in the networked society: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science, Zadar/Croatia, 19th-21st May 2015. Eds.: F. Pehar, C. Schloegl u. C. Wolff

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 197
  • d 98
  • f 1
  • m 1
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 281
  • el 13
  • m 8
  • s 4
  • x 3
  • r 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications