-
Stock, W.G.: ¬Die Wichtigkeit wissenschaftlicher Dokumente relativ zu gegebenen Thematiken (1981)
0.00
0.0026473717 = product of:
0.0052947435 = sum of:
0.0052947435 = product of:
0.010589487 = sum of:
0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 13) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010589487 = score(doc=13,freq=10.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 13, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=13)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Scientific documents are more or less important in relation to give subjects and this importance can be measured. An empirical investigation into philosophical information was carried out using a weighting algorithm developed by N. Henrichs which results in a distribution by weighting of documents on an average philosophical subject. With the aid of statistical methods a threshold value can be obtained that separates the important and unimportant documents on a subject. The knowledge of theis threshold value is important for various practical and theoretic questions: providing new possibilities for research strategy in information retrieval; evaluation of the 'titleworthiness' of subjects by comparison of document titles and themes for which the document at hand is important; and making available data on thematic trends for scientific results
- Type
- a
-
Stock, W.G.: Themenanalytische informetrische Methoden (1990)
0.00
0.0023678814 = product of:
0.0047357627 = sum of:
0.0047357627 = product of:
0.009471525 = sum of:
0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 5065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009471525 = score(doc=5065,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5065, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5065)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Schloegl, C.; Stock, W.G.: Impact and relevance of LIS journals : a scientometric analysis of international and German-language LIS journals - Citation analysis versus reader survey (2004)
0.00
0.0022438213 = product of:
0.0044876426 = sum of:
0.0044876426 = product of:
0.008975285 = sum of:
0.008975285 = weight(_text_:a in 5249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008975285 = score(doc=5249,freq=22.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.16900843 = fieldWeight in 5249, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5249)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The goal of the scientometric analysis presented in this article was to investigate international and regional (i.e., German-language) periodicals in the field of library and information science (LIS). This was done by means of a citation analysis and a reader survey. For the citation analysis, impact factor, citing half-life, number of references per article, and the rate of self-references of a periodical were used as indicators. In addition, the leading LIS periodicals were mapped. For the 40 international periodicals, data were collected from ISI's Social Sciences Citation Index Journal Citation Reports (JCR); the citations of the 10 German-language journals were counted manually (overall 1,494 source articles with 10,520 citations). Altogether, the empirical base of the citation analysis consisted of nearly 90,000 citations in 6,203 source articles that were published between 1997 and 2000. The expert survey investigated reading frequency, applicability of the journals to the job of the reader, publication frequency, and publication preference both for all respondents and for different groups among them (practitioners vs. scientists, librarians vs. documentalists vs. LIS scholars, public sector vs. information industry vs. other private company employees). The study was conducted in spring 2002. A total of 257 questionnaires were returned by information specialists from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Having both citation and readership data, we performed a comparative analysis of these two data sets. This enabled us to identify answers to questions like: Does reading behavior correlate with the journal impact factor? Do readers prefer journals with a short or a long half-life, or with a low or a high number of references? Is there any difference in this matter among librarians, documentalists, and LIS scholars?
- Type
- a
-
Garfield, E.; Paris, S.W.; Stock, W.G.: HistCite(TM) : a software tool for informetric analysis of citation linkage (2006)
0.00
0.0020506454 = product of:
0.004101291 = sum of:
0.004101291 = product of:
0.008202582 = sum of:
0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008202582 = score(doc=79,freq=6.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- HistCite(TM) is a software tool for analyzing and visualizing direct citation linkages between scientific papers. Its inputs are bibliographic records (with cited references) from "Web of Knowledge" or other sources. Its outputs are various tables and graphs with informetric indicators about the knowledge domain under study. As an example we analyze informetrically the literature about Alexius Meinong, an Austrian philosopher and psychologist. The article shortly discusses the informetric functionality of "Web of Knowledge" and shows broadly the possibilities that HistCite offers to its users (e.g. scientists, scientometricans and science journalists).
- Type
- a
-
Stock, W.G.: Informetrische Untersuchungsmethoden auf der Grundlage der Textwortmethode (1984)
0.00
0.0020296127 = product of:
0.0040592253 = sum of:
0.0040592253 = product of:
0.008118451 = sum of:
0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008118451 = score(doc=721,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 721, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=721)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Stock, W.G.: Wirtschaftsinformationen aus informetrischen Online-Recherchen (1992)
0.00
0.0020296127 = product of:
0.0040592253 = sum of:
0.0040592253 = product of:
0.008118451 = sum of:
0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 8367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008118451 = score(doc=8367,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 8367, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8367)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Stock, W.G.: Eugene Garfield und die Folgen : der Weg der Fußnote bis in die Wissenschaftspolitik (2002)
0.00
0.0020296127 = product of:
0.0040592253 = sum of:
0.0040592253 = product of:
0.008118451 = sum of:
0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008118451 = score(doc=472,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Stock, W.G.; Schlögl, C.: Practitioners and academics as authors and readers : the case of LIS journals (2008)
0.00
0.0017899501 = product of:
0.0035799001 = sum of:
0.0035799001 = product of:
0.0071598003 = sum of:
0.0071598003 = weight(_text_:a in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0071598003 = score(doc=2343,freq=14.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics in scholarly communication in library and information science (LIS) journals. Design/methodology/approach - The research is based on a reader survey, a citation analysis and an editor survey. The reader survey identifies both differences in journal rankings between practitioners and academics and the contribution of practitioners to LIS journals. The editor survey provides the proportions of practitioners and academics for the journals. The citation analysis shows the disparities in information exchange between the journals mainly preferred by practitioners and those more favoured by academics. Furthermore, it is possible to explore if practitioner journals differ from academic journals in the citation indicators and in other data collected in the editor survey. Findings - It is found that: practitioners play an active role both as readers and as authors of articles in LIS journals; there is only a low level of information exchange between practitioner and academic journals; the placement of advertisements, the size of the editorial board, requirements concerning an extensive bibliography, the number and the half-life of the references show a clear distinction between practitioner and academic journals. Interestingly, the impact factor did not turn out to be a good indicator to differentiate a practitioner from an academic journal. Research limitations/implications - This research is only exploratory because it is based on separate studies previously conducted. Further research is also needed to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics more deeply. Originality/value - The value of this paper lies in bringing together the findings from complementary studies (reader survey, editor survey and citation analysis) and identifying hypotheses for future research, especially with regards to the roles of and interactions between LIS practitioners and academics in scholarly communication.
- Type
- a
-
Stock, W.G.: Wissenschaftsevaluation mittels Datenbanken : methodisch einwandfrei? (1995)
0.00
0.0016913437 = product of:
0.0033826875 = sum of:
0.0033826875 = product of:
0.006765375 = sum of:
0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 2443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006765375 = score(doc=2443,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2443, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2443)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Stock, W.G.; Weber, S.: Facets of informetrics : Preface (2006)
0.00
0.0016571716 = product of:
0.0033143433 = sum of:
0.0033143433 = product of:
0.0066286866 = sum of:
0.0066286866 = weight(_text_:a in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0066286866 = score(doc=76,freq=12.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.12482099 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- According to Jean M. Tague-Sutcliffe "informetrics" is "the study of the quantitative aspects of information in any form, not just records or bibliographies, and in any social group, not just scientists" (Tague-Sutcliffe, 1992, 1). Leo Egghe also defines "informetrics" in a very broad sense. "(W)e will use the term' informetrics' as the broad term comprising all-metrics studies related to information science, including bibliometrics (bibliographies, libraries,...), scientometrics (science policy, citation analysis, research evaluation,...), webometrics (metrics of the web, the Internet or other social networks such as citation or collaboration networks), ..." (Egghe, 2005b,1311). According to Concepcion S. Wilson "informetrics" is "the quantitative study of collections of moderatesized units of potentially informative text, directed to the scientific understanding of information processes at the social level" (Wilson, 1999, 211). We should add to Wilson's units of text also digital collections of images, videos, spoken documents and music. Dietmar Wolfram divides "informetrics" into two aspects, "system-based characteristics that arise from the documentary content of IR systems and how they are indexed, and usage-based characteristics that arise how users interact with system content and the system interfaces that provide access to the content" (Wolfram, 2003, 6). We would like to follow Tague-Sutcliffe, Egghe, Wilson and Wolfram (and others, for example Björneborn & Ingwersen, 2004) and call this broad research of empirical information science "informetrics". Informetrics includes therefore all quantitative studies in information science. If a scientist performs scientific investigations empirically, e.g. on information users' behavior, on scientific impact of academic journals, on the development of the patent application activity of a company, on links of Web pages, on the temporal distribution of blog postings discussing a given topic, on availability, recall and precision of retrieval systems, on usability of Web sites, and so on, he or she contributes to informetrics. We see three subject areas in information science in which such quantitative research takes place, - information users and information usage, - evaluation of information systems, - information itself, Following Wolfram's article, we divide his system-based characteristics into the "information itself "-category and the "information system"-category. Figure 1 is a simplistic graph of subjects and research areas of informetrics as an empirical information science.
- Type
- a
-
Grazia Colonia; Dimmler, E.; Dresel, R.; Messner, C.; Krobath, A.; Petz, S.; Sypien, M.; Boxen, P. van; Harders, M.; Heuer, D.; Jordans, I.; Juchem, K.; Linnertz, M.; Mittelhuber, I.; Schwammel, S.; Schlögl, C.; Stock, W.G.: Informationswissenschaftliche Zeitschriften in szientometrischer Analyse (2002)
0.00
0.0011839407 = product of:
0.0023678814 = sum of:
0.0023678814 = product of:
0.0047357627 = sum of:
0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0047357627 = score(doc=1075,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Juchem, K.; Schlögl, C.; Stock, W.G.: Dimensionen der Zeitschriftenszientometrie am Beispiel von "Buch und Bibliothek" (2006)
0.00
0.0010148063 = product of:
0.0020296127 = sum of:
0.0020296127 = product of:
0.0040592253 = sum of:
0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 4931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0040592253 = score(doc=4931,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 4931, 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=4931)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Schlögl, C; Stock, W.G.: Deutsche Zeitschriften des Bibliotheks- und Informationswesens : Leser, Zitate und Redaktionen in szientometrischer Analyse (2006)
0.00
0.0010148063 = product of:
0.0020296127 = sum of:
0.0020296127 = product of:
0.0040592253 = sum of:
0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 52) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0040592253 = score(doc=52,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 52, 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=52)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Stock, W.G.: Journal Citation Reports : Ein Impact Factor für Bibliotheken, Verlage und Autoren? (2001)
0.00
8.4567186E-4 = product of:
0.0016913437 = sum of:
0.0016913437 = product of:
0.0033826875 = sum of:
0.0033826875 = weight(_text_:a in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0033826875 = score(doc=5915,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Stock, W.G.: Forschung im internationalen Vergleich - Wissenschaftsindikatoren auf Zitationsbasis : ISI Essential Science Indicators (2002)
0.00
8.4567186E-4 = product of:
0.0016913437 = sum of:
0.0016913437 = product of:
0.0033826875 = sum of:
0.0033826875 = weight(_text_:a in 474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0033826875 = score(doc=474,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 474, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=474)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
