-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990)
0.06
0.061088145 = product of:
0.18326443 = sum of:
0.18326443 = sum of:
0.09842326 = weight(_text_:i in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09842326 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16870351 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.58340967 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
0.08484117 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08484117 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:29
-
Burrell, Q.L.: Predicting future citation behavior (2003)
0.04
0.0394473 = product of:
0.059170946 = sum of:
0.037960652 = product of:
0.075921305 = sum of:
0.075921305 = weight(_text_:t in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.075921305 = score(doc=3837,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.4308728 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.021210292 = product of:
0.042420585 = sum of:
0.042420585 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042420585 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- In this article we further develop the theory for a stochastic model for the citation process in the presence of obsolescence to predict the future citation pattern of individual papers in a collection. More precisely, we investigate the conditional distribution-and its mean- of the number of citations to a paper after time t, given the number of citations it has received up to time t. In an important parametric case it is shown that the expected number of future citations is a linear function of the current number, this being interpretable as an example of a success-breeds-success phenomenon.
- Date
- 29. 3.2003 19:22:48
-
Renn, O.; Schnabl, J.: Forschungsmetriken: Ignorieren, boykottieren oder nutzen? : Forschungsmetriken in die Praxis gebracht (2017)
0.04
0.039198514 = product of:
0.05879777 = sum of:
0.03067684 = product of:
0.06135368 = sum of:
0.06135368 = weight(_text_:t in 5633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06135368 = score(doc=5633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.34819782 = fieldWeight in 5633, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5633)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.028120931 = product of:
0.056241862 = sum of:
0.056241862 = weight(_text_:i in 5633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056241862 = score(doc=5633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16870351 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 5633, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5633)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Content
- Vgl.: https://www.b-i-t-online.de/heft/2017-03-index.php.
-
Li, T.-C.: Reference sources in periodicals : research note (1995)
0.04
0.03661145 = product of:
0.05491717 = sum of:
0.03067684 = product of:
0.06135368 = sum of:
0.06135368 = weight(_text_:t in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06135368 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.34819782 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.024240334 = product of:
0.048480667 = sum of:
0.048480667 = weight(_text_:22 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048480667 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5092, 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=5092)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Presents a list of 53 periodicals in 22 subject fields which regularly provide bibliographies of theses, research in progress and patents in their particular subject field. The fields of business, economics, history and literature have most periodical listings of dissertations and theses. Also lists 63 periodicals in 25 sub-disciplines which provide rankings or ratings. Rankings and ratings information predominates in the fields of business, sports and games, finance and banking, and library and information science
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.04
0.03661145 = product of:
0.05491717 = sum of:
0.03067684 = product of:
0.06135368 = sum of:
0.06135368 = weight(_text_:t in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06135368 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.34819782 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.024240334 = product of:
0.048480667 = sum of:
0.048480667 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048480667 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
-
Chen, C.-M.: Classification of scientific networks using aggregated journal-journal citation relations in the Journal Citation Reports (2008)
0.03
0.033856157 = product of:
0.050784234 = sum of:
0.033208653 = product of:
0.06641731 = sum of:
0.06641731 = weight(_text_:t in 2690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06641731 = score(doc=2690,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.37693518 = fieldWeight in 2690, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2690)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.01757558 = product of:
0.03515116 = sum of:
0.03515116 = weight(_text_:i in 2690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03515116 = score(doc=2690,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16870351 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 2690, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2690)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- I propose an approach to classifying scientific networks in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations of the ISI Journal Citation Reports using the affinity propagation method. This algorithm is applied to obtain the classification of SCI and SSCI journals by minimizing intracategory journal-journal (J-J) distances in the database, where distance between journals is calculated from the similarity of their annual citation patterns with a cutoff parameter, t, to restrain the maximal J-J distance. As demonstrated in the classification of SCI journals, classification of scientific networks with different resolution is possible by choosing proper values of t. Twenty journal categories in SCI are found to be stable despite a difference of an order of magnitude in t. In our classifications, the level of specificity of a category can be found by looking at its value of RJ (the average distance of members of a category to its representative journal), and relatedness of category members is implied by the value of DJ-J (the average DJ-J distance within a category). Our results are consistent with the ISI classification scheme, and the level of relatedness for most categories in our classification is higher than their counterpart in the ISI classification scheme.
-
He, Z.-L.: International collaboration does not have greater epistemic authority (2009)
0.03
0.03200467 = product of:
0.09601401 = sum of:
0.09601401 = sum of:
0.059653506 = weight(_text_:i in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059653506 = score(doc=3122,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16870351 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.35359967 = fieldWeight in 3122, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3122)
0.0363605 = weight(_text_:22 in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0363605 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3122, 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=3122)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The consistent finding that internationally coauthored papers are more heavily cited has led to a tacit agreement among politicians and scientists that international collaboration in scientific research should be particularly promoted. However, existing studies of research collaboration suffer from a major weakness in that the Thomson Reuters Web of Science until recently did not link author names with affiliation addresses. The general approach has been to hierarchically code papers into international paper, national paper, or local paper based on the address information. This hierarchical coding scheme severely understates the level and contribution of local or national collaboration on an internationally coauthored paper. In this research, I code collaboration variables by hand checking each paper in the sample, use two measures of a paper's impact, and try several regression models. I find that both international collaboration and local collaboration are positively and significantly associated with a paper's impact, but international collaboration does not have more epistemic authority than local collaboration. This result suggests that previous findings based on hierarchical coding might be misleading.
- Date
- 26. 9.2009 11:22:05
-
Campanario, J.M.: Large increases and decreases in journal impact factors in only one year : the effect of journal self-citations (2011)
0.03
0.030544072 = product of:
0.09163222 = sum of:
0.09163222 = sum of:
0.04921163 = weight(_text_:i in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04921163 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16870351 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
0.042420585 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042420585 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- I studied the factors (citations, self-citations, and number of articles) that influenced large changes in only 1 year in the impact factors (IFs) of journals. A set of 360 instances of journals with large increases or decreases in their IFs from a given year to the following was selected from journals in the Journal Citation Reports from 1998 to 2007 (40 journals each year). The main factor influencing large changes was the change in the number of citations. About 54% of the increases and 42% of the decreases in the journal IFs were associated with changes in the journal self-citations.
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:53:00
-
Brooks, T.A.: How good are the best papers of JASIS? (2000)
0.03
0.029398886 = product of:
0.04409833 = sum of:
0.02300763 = product of:
0.04601526 = sum of:
0.04601526 = weight(_text_:t in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04601526 = score(doc=4593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0210907 = product of:
0.0421814 = sum of:
0.0421814 = weight(_text_:i in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0421814 = score(doc=4593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16870351 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Content
- Top by numbers of citations: (1) Saracevic, T. et al.: A study of information seeking and retrieving I-III (1988); (2) Bates, M.: Information search tactics (1979); (3) Cooper, W.S.: On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness (1973); (4) Marcus, R.S.: A experimental comparison of the effectiveness of computers and humans as search intermediaries (1983); (4) Fidel, R.: Online searching styles (1984)
-
Samoylenko, I.; Chao, T.-C.; Liu, W.-C.; Chen, C.-M.: Visualizing the scientific world and its evolution (2006)
0.03
0.029398886 = product of:
0.04409833 = sum of:
0.02300763 = product of:
0.04601526 = sum of:
0.04601526 = weight(_text_:t in 5911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04601526 = score(doc=5911,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 5911, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5911)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0210907 = product of:
0.0421814 = sum of:
0.0421814 = weight(_text_:i in 5911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0421814 = score(doc=5911,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16870351 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 5911, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5911)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
-
Althouse, B.M.; West, J.D.; Bergstrom, C.T.; Bergstrom, T.: Differences in impact factor across fields and over time (2009)
0.03
0.027458586 = product of:
0.04118788 = sum of:
0.02300763 = product of:
0.04601526 = sum of:
0.04601526 = weight(_text_:t in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04601526 = score(doc=2695,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 2695, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2695)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.01818025 = product of:
0.0363605 = sum of:
0.0363605 = weight(_text_:22 in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0363605 = score(doc=2695,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2695, 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=2695)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 23. 2.2009 18:22:28
-
¬Die deutsche Zeitschrift für Dokumentation, Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis von 1950 bis 2011 : eine vorläufige Bilanz in vier Abschnitten (2012)
0.03
0.027458586 = product of:
0.04118788 = sum of:
0.02300763 = product of:
0.04601526 = sum of:
0.04601526 = weight(_text_:t in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04601526 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.01818025 = product of:
0.0363605 = sum of:
0.0363605 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0363605 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 22. 7.2012 19:35:26
- Footnote
- Besteht aus 4 Teilen: Teil 1: Eden, D., A. Arndt, A. Hoffer, T. Raschke u. P. Schön: Die Nachrichten für Dokumentation in den Jahren 1950 bis 1962 (S.159-163). Teil 2: Brose, M., E. durst, D. Nitzsche, D. Veckenstedt u. R. Wein: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1963-1975 (S.164-170). Teil 3: Bösel, J., G. Ebert, P. Garz,, M. Iwanow u. B. Russ: Methoden und Ergebnisse einer statistischen Auswertung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1976 bis 1988 (S.171-174). Teil 4: Engelage, H., S. Jansen, R. Mertins, K. Redel u. S. Ring: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) / "Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis" (IWP) 1989-2011 (S.164-170).
-
Huang, M.-H.; Huang, W.-T.; Chang, C.-C.; Chen, D. Z.; Lin, C.-P.: The greater scattering phenomenon beyond Bradford's law in patent citation (2014)
0.03
0.027458586 = product of:
0.04118788 = sum of:
0.02300763 = product of:
0.04601526 = sum of:
0.04601526 = weight(_text_:t in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04601526 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.01818025 = product of:
0.0363605 = sum of:
0.0363605 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0363605 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:11:29
-
Ntuli, H.; Inglesi-Lotz, R.; Chang, T.; Pouris, A.: Does research output cause economic growth or vice versa? : evidence from 34 OECD countries (2015)
0.03
0.027458586 = product of:
0.04118788 = sum of:
0.02300763 = product of:
0.04601526 = sum of:
0.04601526 = weight(_text_:t in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04601526 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.01818025 = product of:
0.0363605 = sum of:
0.0363605 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0363605 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2132, 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=2132)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 8. 7.2015 22:00:42
-
Kreider, J.: ¬The correlation of local citation data with citation data from Journal Citation Reports (1999)
0.03
0.026180632 = product of:
0.0785419 = sum of:
0.0785419 = sum of:
0.0421814 = weight(_text_:i in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0421814 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16870351 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
0.0363605 = weight(_text_:22 in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0363605 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 102, 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=102)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- University librarians continue to face the difficult task of determining which journals remain crucial for their collections during these times of static financial resources and escalating journal costs. One evaluative tool, Journal Citation Reports (JCR), recently has become available on CD-ROM, making it simpler for librarians to use its citation data as input for ranking journals. But many librarians remain unconvinced that the global citation data from the JCR bears enough correspondence to their local situation to be useful. In this project, I explore the correlation between global citation data available from JCR with local citation data generated specifically for the University of British Columbia, for 20 subject fields in the sciences and social sciences. The significant correlations obtained in this study suggest that large research-oriented university libraries could consider substituting global citation data for local citation data when evaluating their journals, with certain cautions.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Ajiferuke, I.; Lu, K.; Wolfram, D.: ¬A comparison of citer and citation-based measure outcomes for multiple disciplines (2010)
0.03
0.026180632 = product of:
0.0785419 = sum of:
0.0785419 = sum of:
0.0421814 = weight(_text_:i in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0421814 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16870351 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
0.0363605 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0363605 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 28. 9.2010 12:54:22
-
Shuai, X.; Rollins, J.; Moulinier, I.; Custis, T.; Edmunds, M.; Schilder, F.: ¬A multidimensional investigation of the effects of publication retraction on scholarly impact (2017)
0.02
0.024499072 = product of:
0.036748607 = sum of:
0.019173026 = product of:
0.038346052 = sum of:
0.038346052 = weight(_text_:t in 3798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038346052 = score(doc=3798,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.21762364 = fieldWeight in 3798, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3798)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.01757558 = product of:
0.03515116 = sum of:
0.03515116 = weight(_text_:i in 3798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03515116 = score(doc=3798,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16870351 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 3798, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3798)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
-
Schubert, T.; Michels, C.: Placing articles in the large publisher nations : is there a "free lunch" in terms of higher impact? (2013)
0.02
0.022882156 = product of:
0.034323234 = sum of:
0.019173026 = product of:
0.038346052 = sum of:
0.038346052 = weight(_text_:t in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038346052 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.21762364 = fieldWeight in 669, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=669)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.015150209 = product of:
0.030300418 = sum of:
0.030300418 = weight(_text_:22 in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030300418 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 669, 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=669)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:45:49
-
Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017)
0.02
0.022882156 = product of:
0.034323234 = sum of:
0.019173026 = product of:
0.038346052 = sum of:
0.038346052 = weight(_text_:t in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038346052 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.21762364 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.015150209 = product of:
0.030300418 = sum of:
0.030300418 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030300418 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4410, 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=4410)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between dissemination of research papers on Twitter and its influence on research impact. Design/methodology/approach Four types of journal Twitter accounts (journal, owner, publisher and no Twitter account) were defined to observe differences in the number of tweets and citations. In total, 4,176 articles from 350 journals were extracted from Plum Analytics. This altmetric provider tracks the number of tweets and citations for each paper. Student's t-test for two-paired samples was used to detect significant differences between each group of journals. Regression analysis was performed to detect which variables may influence the getting of tweets and citations. Findings The results show that journals with their own Twitter account obtain more tweets (46 percent) and citations (34 percent) than journals without a Twitter account. Followers is the variable that attracts more tweets (ß=0.47) and citations (ß=0.28) but the effect is small and the fit is not good for tweets (R2=0.46) and insignificant for citations (R2=0.18). Originality/value This is the first study that tests the performance of research journals on Twitter according to their handles, observing how the dissemination of content in this microblogging network influences the citation of their papers.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Cerda-Cosme, R.; Méndez, E.: Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19 : a first approach (2023)
0.02
0.021817192 = product of:
0.06545158 = sum of:
0.06545158 = sum of:
0.03515116 = weight(_text_:i in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03515116 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16870351 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = queryNorm
0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
0.030300418 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030300418 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04472842 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
