Search (48 results, page 2 of 3)

Zhao, D.; Strotmann, A.: Can citation analysis of Web publications better detect research fronts? (2007) 0.01
```
0.011159557 = product of:
  0.022319114 = sum of:
    0.022319114 = product of:
      0.044638228 = sum of:
        0.044638228 = weight(_text_:b in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044638228 = score(doc=471,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.2767939 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

We present evidence that in some research fields, research published in journals and reported on the Web may collectively represent different evolutionary stages of the field, with journals lagging a few years behind the Web on average, and that a "two-tier" scholarly communication system may therefore be evolving. We conclude that in such fields, (a) for detecting current research fronts, author co-citation analyses (ACA) using articles published on the Web as a data source can outperform traditional ACAs using articles published in journals as data, and that (b) as a result, it is important to use multiple data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication for a complete picture of communication patterns. Our evidence stems from comparing the respective intellectual structures of the XML research field, a subfield of computer science, as revealed from three sets of ACA covering two time periods: (a) from the field's beginnings in 1996 to 2001, and (b) from 2001 to 2006. For the first time period, we analyze research articles both from journals as indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) and from the Web as indexed by CiteSeer. We follow up by an ACA of SCI data for the second time period. We find that most trends in the evolution of this field from the first to the second time period that we find when comparing ACA results from the SCI between the two time periods already were apparent in the ACA results from CiteSeer during the first time period.

Cronin, B.; Weaver-Wozniak, S.: Online access to acknowledgements (1993) 0.01

0.011047398 = product of:
  0.022094795 = sum of:
    0.022094795 = product of:
      0.04418959 = sum of:
        0.04418959 = weight(_text_:b in 7827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04418959 = score(doc=7827,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 7827, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7827)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Morris, S.A.; Yen, G.; Wu, Z.; Asnake, B.: Time line visualization of research fronts (2003) 0.01

0.011047398 = product of:
  0.022094795 = sum of:
    0.022094795 = product of:
      0.04418959 = sum of:
        0.04418959 = weight(_text_:b in 1452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04418959 = score(doc=1452,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 1452, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1452)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Hellqvist, B.: Referencing in the humanities and its implications for citation analysis (2010) 0.01

0.011047398 = product of:
  0.022094795 = sum of:
    0.022094795 = product of:
      0.04418959 = sum of:
        0.04418959 = weight(_text_:b in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04418959 = score(doc=3329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001) 0.01

0.010792375 = product of:
  0.02158475 = sum of:
    0.02158475 = product of:
      0.0431695 = sum of:
        0.0431695 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0431695 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = 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

Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.01

0.010792375 = product of:
  0.02158475 = sum of:
    0.02158475 = product of:
      0.0431695 = sum of:
        0.0431695 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0431695 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date: 17.11.2020 12:22:59

Snyder, H.; Cronin, B.; Davenport, E.: What's the use of citation? : Citation analysis as a literature topic in selected disciplines of the social sciences (1995) 0.01

0.009469198 = product of:
  0.018938396 = sum of:
    0.018938396 = product of:
      0.037876792 = sum of:
        0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037876792 = score(doc=1825,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Meho, L.I.; Sonnenwald, D.H.: Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance : a case study of Kurdish scholarship (2000) 0.01
```
0.009469198 = product of:
  0.018938396 = sum of:
    0.018938396 = product of:
      0.037876792 = sum of:
        0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037876792 = score(doc=4382,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between citation ranking and peer evaluation in assessing senior faculty research performance. Other studies typically derive their peer evaluation data directly from referees, often in the form of ranking. This study uses two additional sources of peer evaluation data: citation contant analysis and book review content analysis. 2 main questions are investigated: (a) To what degree does citation ranking correlate with data from citation content analysis, book reviews and peer ranking? (b) Is citation ranking a valif evaluative indicator of research performance of senior faculty members? This study shows that citation ranking can provide a valid indicator for comparative evaluation of senior faculty research performance

Chen, C.; Paul, R.J.; O'Keefe, B.: Fitting the Jigsaw of citation : information visualization in domain analysis (2001) 0.01

0.009469198 = product of:
  0.018938396 = sum of:
    0.018938396 = product of:
      0.037876792 = sum of:
        0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037876792 = score(doc=5766,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Gorraiz, J.: "Web of Science" versus "Scopus" oder das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliotheken (2006) 0.01
```
0.009469198 = product of:
  0.018938396 = sum of:
    0.018938396 = product of:
      0.037876792 = sum of:
        0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037876792 = score(doc=5021,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5021, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Bei den nachfolgenden Ausführungen handelt es sich um eine Zusammenstellung von Kommentaren, Vorträgen und Rückmeldungen von Kollegen bzw. Benutzern der Bibliothek sowie meine eigenen Erfahrungen als Vortragender im Universitätslehrgang "Master of Science", in dessen Rahmen ich das Fach "Bibliometrie" unterrichte. Schwerpunkt dieses Beitrages ist eine Zusammenfassung der Diskussion "Web of Science versus Scopus", die den aktuellen Stand der Kontroverse (vor allem an der Universität Wien im naturwissenschaftlichen Sektor) widerspiegelt. Hier ist zu bemerken, dass diese Problematik auch fachspezifisch ist und deswegen an jeder Universität bzw. in jedem Fachgebiet anders zu betrachten ist. Startpunkt meiner Betrachtung ist die allgemein akzeptierte Notwendigkeit des "Journal of Citation Reports (JCR)". Nur in diesem bibliometrischen Verzeichnis sind derzeit die "Impact Factors" zu finden, die als Grundlage jeder akademischen Evaluation dienen. Deswegen ist JCR heutzutage an jeder Universität mit naturwissenschaftlichen Fächern unentbehrlich und das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliothekare lautet nicht wirklich "Web of Science versus Scopus", sondern genaugesagt "Fallbeispiel A: Web of Science &JCR" oder "Fallbeispiel B: Scopus &JCR".
Mayr, P.; Walter, A.-K.: Abdeckung und Aktualität des Suchdienstes Google Scholar (2006) 0.01
```
0.009469198 = product of:
  0.018938396 = sum of:
    0.018938396 = product of:
      0.037876792 = sum of:
        0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 5131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037876792 = score(doc=5131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Der Beitrag widmet sich dem neuen Google-Suchdienst Google Scholar. Die Suchmaschine, die ausschließlich wissenschaftliche Dokumente durchsuchen soll, wird mit ihren wichtigsten Funktionen beschrieben und anschließend einem empirischen Test unterzogen. Die durchgeführte Studie basiert auf drei Zeitschriftenlisten: Zeitschriften von Thomson Scientific, Open AccessZeitschriften des Verzeichnisses DOAJ und in der Fachdatenbank SOLIS ausgewertete sozialwissenschaftliche Zeitschriften. Die Abdeckung dieser Zeitschriften durch Google Scholar wurde per Abfrage der Zeitschriftentitel überprüft. Die Studie zeigt Defizite in der Abdeckung und Aktualität des Google Scholarlndex. Weiterhin macht die Studie deutlich, wer die wichtigsten Datenlieferanten für den neuen Suchdienst sind und welche wissenschaftlichen Informationsquellen im Index repräsentiert sind. Die Pluspunkte von Google Scholar liegen in seiner Einfachheit, seiner Suchgeschwindigkeit und letztendlich seiner Kostenfreiheit. Die Recherche in Fachdatenbanken kann Google Scholar trotz sichtbarer Potenziale (z. B. Zitationsanalyse) aber heute aufgrund mangelnder fachlicher Abdeckung und Transparenz nicht ersetzen.

Aguillo, I.F.; Granadino, B.; Ortega, J.L.; Prieto, J.A.: Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetrics indicators (2006) 0.01

0.009469198 = product of:
  0.018938396 = sum of:
    0.018938396 = product of:
      0.037876792 = sum of:
        0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037876792 = score(doc=5898,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5898, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5898)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Daquino, M.; Peroni, S.; Shotton, D.; Colavizza, G.; Ghavimi, B.; Lauscher, A.; Mayr, P.; Romanello, M.; Zumstein, P.: ¬The OpenCitations Data Model (2020) 0.01

0.009469198 = product of:
  0.018938396 = sum of:
    0.018938396 = product of:
      0.037876792 = sum of:
        0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 38) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037876792 = score(doc=38,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 38, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=38)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Araújo, P.C. de; Gutierres Castanha, R.C.; Hjoerland, B.: Citation indexing and indexes (2021) 0.01

0.009469198 = product of:
  0.018938396 = sum of:
    0.018938396 = product of:
      0.037876792 = sum of:
        0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037876792 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
      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
```
0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = 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

0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = 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

wst: Cut-and-paste-Wissenschaft (2003) 0.01
```
0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1270, 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=1270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Content

"Mikhail Simkin und Vwani Roychowdhury von der University of Califomia, Los Angeles, haben eine in der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft verbreitete Unsitte erstmals quantitativ erfasst. Die Wissenschaftler analysierten die Verbreitung von Druckfehlern in den Literaturlisten wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten (www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043). 78 Prozent aller zitierten Aufsätze - so schätzen die Forscher - haben die zitierenden Wissenschaftler demnach nicht gelesen, sondern nur per 'cut and paste' von einer Vorlage in ihre eigene Literaturliste übernommen. Das könne man beispielsweise abschätzen aus der Analyse fehlerhafter Seitenangaben in der Literaturliste eines 1973 veröffentlichten Aufsatzes über die Struktur zweidimensionaler Kristalle: Dieser Aufsatz ist rund 4300 mal zitiert worden. In 196 Fällen enthalten die Zitate jedoch Fehler in der Jahreszahl, dem Band der Zeitschrift oder der Seitenzahl, die als Indikatoren für cut and paste genommen werden können, denn man kann, obwohl es Milliarden Möglichkeiten gibt, nur 45 verschiedene Arten von Druckfehlern unterscheiden. In erster Näherung ergibt sich eine Obergrenze für die Zahl der `echten Leser' daher aus der Zahl der unterscheidbaren Druckfehler (45) geteilt durch die Gesamtzahl der Publikationen mit Druckfehler (196), das macht etwa 22 Prozent."

Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.01

0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date: 3. 1.2007 17:22:03

H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.01

0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date: 6. 4.2008 19:04:22

Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.01

0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date: 26.12.2007 19:22:05

Search (48 results, page 2 of 3)

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

Themes