-
Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020)
0.05
0.04654435 = product of:
0.0930887 = sum of:
0.0930887 = sum of:
0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049993843 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043094855 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.
- Date
- 17.11.2020 12:22:59
-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.03
0.02659677 = product of:
0.05319354 = sum of:
0.05319354 = sum of:
0.02856791 = weight(_text_:i in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02856791 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.024625631 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024625631 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
- Date
- 9. 7.2006 10:22:35
-
Malanga, G.: Classifying and screening journal literature with citation data (1982)
0.03
0.025250703 = product of:
0.050501406 = sum of:
0.050501406 = product of:
0.10100281 = sum of:
0.10100281 = weight(_text_:i in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10100281 = score(doc=553,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.58933276 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.02
0.024625631 = product of:
0.049251262 = sum of:
0.049251262 = product of:
0.098502524 = sum of:
0.098502524 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.098502524 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 13. 7.2008 19:53:22
-
Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992)
0.02
0.024625631 = product of:
0.049251262 = sum of:
0.049251262 = product of:
0.098502524 = sum of:
0.098502524 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.098502524 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 7. 2.2005 14:10:22
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.02
0.02176619 = product of:
0.04353238 = sum of:
0.04353238 = product of:
0.08706476 = sum of:
0.08706476 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08706476 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, 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=3925)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:22:28
-
Rajan, T.N.; Guha, B.; Sayanarayana, R.: Associate relationship of concepts as seen through citations and citation index (1982)
0.02
0.021425933 = product of:
0.042851865 = sum of:
0.042851865 = product of:
0.08570373 = sum of:
0.08570373 = weight(_text_:i in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08570373 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.50006545 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Universal classification II: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg
-
Pudovkin, A.I.; Garfield, E.: Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals (2002)
0.02
0.015462836 = product of:
0.030925673 = sum of:
0.030925673 = product of:
0.061851345 = sum of:
0.061851345 = weight(_text_:i in 5220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061851345 = score(doc=5220,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.36089116 = fieldWeight in 5220, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5220)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Journal Citation Reports provides a classification of journals most heavily cited by a given journal and which most heavily cite that journal, but size variation is not taken into account. Pudovkin and Garfield suggest a procedure for meeting this difficulty. The relatedness of journal i to journal j is determined by the number of citations from journal i to journal j in a given year normalized by the product of the papers published in the j journal in that year times the number of references cited in the i journal in that year. A multiplier of ten to the sixth is suggested to bring the values into an easily perceptible range. While citations received depend upon the overall cumulative number of papers published by a journal, the current year is utilized since that data is available in JCR. Citations to current year papers would be quite low in most fields and thus not included. To produce the final index, the maximum of the A citing B value, and the B citing A value is chosen and used to indicate the closeness of the journals. The procedure is illustrated for the journal Genetics.
-
Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002)
0.02
0.01539102 = product of:
0.03078204 = sum of:
0.03078204 = product of:
0.06156408 = sum of:
0.06156408 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06156408 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
-
Belter, C.W.: Citation analysis as a literature search method for systematic reviews (2016)
0.02
0.015150423 = product of:
0.030300846 = sum of:
0.030300846 = product of:
0.060601693 = sum of:
0.060601693 = weight(_text_:i in 3158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060601693 = score(doc=3158,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.35359967 = fieldWeight in 3158, 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=3158)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Systematic reviews are essential for evaluating biomedical treatment options, but the growing size and complexity of the available biomedical literature combined with the rigor of the systematic review method mean that systematic reviews are extremely difficult and labor-intensive to perform. In this article, I propose a method of searching the literature by systematically mining the various types of citation relationships between articles. I then test the method by comparing its precision and recall to that of 14 published systematic reviews. The method successfully retrieved 74% of the studies included in these reviews and 90% of the studies it could reasonably be expected to retrieve. The method also retrieved fewer than half of the total number of publications retrieved by these reviews and can be performed in substantially less time. This suggests that the proposed method offers a promising complement to traditional text-based methods of literature identification and retrieval for systematic reviews.
-
Osareh, F.: Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis : a review of literature I (1996)
0.01
0.014283955 = product of:
0.02856791 = sum of:
0.02856791 = product of:
0.05713582 = sum of:
0.05713582 = weight(_text_:i in 7170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05713582 = score(doc=7170,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 7170, 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=7170)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009)
0.01
0.013059714 = product of:
0.026119428 = sum of:
0.026119428 = product of:
0.052238856 = sum of:
0.052238856 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052238856 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:22:35
-
Száva-Kováts, E.: Indirect-collective referencing (ICR) in the elite journal literature of physics : I: a literature science study on the journal level (2001)
0.01
0.012498461 = product of:
0.024996921 = sum of:
0.024996921 = product of:
0.049993843 = sum of:
0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 5180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049993843 = score(doc=5180,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 5180, 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=5180)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013)
0.01
0.0123128155 = product of:
0.024625631 = sum of:
0.024625631 = product of:
0.049251262 = sum of:
0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049251262 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 17.12.2013 11:02:22
-
Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001)
0.01
0.010773714 = product of:
0.021547427 = sum of:
0.021547427 = product of:
0.043094855 = sum of:
0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043094855 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, 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=6920)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 16.12.2001 14:01:22
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006)
0.01
0.010773714 = product of:
0.021547427 = sum of:
0.021547427 = product of:
0.043094855 = sum of:
0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043094855 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, 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=5269)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:20:01
-
Brooks, T.A.: How good are the best papers of JASIS? (2000)
0.01
0.010712966 = product of:
0.021425933 = sum of:
0.021425933 = product of:
0.042851865 = sum of:
0.042851865 = weight(_text_:i in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042851865 = score(doc=4593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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)
-
Marshakova-Shaikevich, I.: Bibliometric maps of field of science (2005)
0.01
0.010712966 = product of:
0.021425933 = sum of:
0.021425933 = product of:
0.042851865 = sum of:
0.042851865 = weight(_text_:i in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042851865 = score(doc=1069,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 1069, 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=1069)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996)
0.01
0.009234612 = product of:
0.018469224 = sum of:
0.018469224 = product of:
0.036938448 = sum of:
0.036938448 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036938448 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles
-
Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998)
0.01
0.009234612 = product of:
0.018469224 = sum of:
0.018469224 = product of:
0.036938448 = sum of:
0.036938448 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036938448 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 5.1999 19:33:24
