Search (52 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Rostaing, H.; Barts, N.; Léveillé, V.: Bibliometrics: representation instrument of the multidisciplinary positioning of a scientific area : Implementation for an Advisory Scientific Committee (2007) 0.06 
    0.06168072 = product of:
  0.12336144 = sum of:
    0.12336144 = sum of:
      0.0743306 = weight(_text_:n in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0743306 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.38110018 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
      0.049030844 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049030844 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1144, 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=1144)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    30.12.2007 11:22:39
  2. Shibata, N.; Kajikawa, Y.; Takeda, Y.; Matsushima, K.: Comparative study on methods of detecting research fronts using different types of citation (2009) 0.04 
    0.03855045 = product of:
  0.0771009 = sum of:
    0.0771009 = sum of:
      0.046456624 = weight(_text_:n in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046456624 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 2743, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2743)
      0.030644279 = weight(_text_:22 in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030644279 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2743, 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=2743)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:52:50
  3. Antonakis, J.; Lalive, R.: Quantifying scholarly impact : IQp versus the Hirsch h (2008) 0.03 
    0.03072817 = product of:
  0.06145634 = sum of:
    0.06145634 = product of:
      0.12291268 = sum of:
        0.12291268 = weight(_text_:n in 1722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12291268 = score(doc=1722,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.63018525 = fieldWeight in 1722, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1722)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Hirsch's (2005) h index of scholarly output has generated substantial interest and wide acceptance because of its apparent ability to quantify scholarly impact simply and accurately. We show that the excitement surrounding h is premature for three reasons: h stagnates with increasing scientific age; it is highly dependent on publication quantity; and it is highly dependent on field-specific citation rates. Thus, it is not useful for comparing scholars across disciplines. We propose the scholarly index of quality and productivity (IQp) as an alternative to h. The new index takes into account a scholar's total impact and also corrects for field-specific citation rates, scholarly productivity, and scientific age. The IQp accurately predicts group membership on a common metric, as tested on a sample of 80 scholars from three populations: (a) Nobel winners in physics (n = 10), chemistry (n = 10), medicine (n = 10), and economics (n = 10), and towering psychologists (n = 10); and scholars who have made more modest contributions to science including randomly selected (b) fellows (n = 15) and (c) members (n = 15) of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The IQp also correlates better with expert ratings of greatness than does the h index.
  4. Egghe, L.; Ravichandra Rao, I.K.: ¬The influence of the broadness of a query of a topic on its h-index : models and examples of the h-index of n-grams (2008) 0.03 
    0.028448759 = product of:
  0.056897517 = sum of:
    0.056897517 = product of:
      0.113795035 = sum of:
        0.113795035 = weight(_text_:n in 2009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.113795035 = score(doc=2009,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.58343816 = fieldWeight in 2009, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2009)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The article studies the influence of the query formulation of a topic on its h-index. In order to generate pure random sets of documents, we used N-grams (N variable) to measure this influence: strings of zeros, truncated at the end. The used databases are WoS and Scopus. The formula h=T**1/alpha, proved in Egghe and Rousseau (2006) where T is the number of retrieved documents and is Lotka's exponent, is confirmed being a concavely increasing function of T. We also give a formula for the relation between h and N the length of the N-gram: h=D10**(-N/alpha) where D is a constant, a convexly decreasing function, which is found in our experiments. Nonlinear regression on h=T**1/alpha gives an estimation of , which can then be used to estimate the h-index of the entire database (Web of Science [WoS] and Scopus): h=S**1/alpha, , where S is the total number of documents in the database.
  5. Egghe, L.; Ravichandra Rao, I.K.: Duality revisited : construction of fractional frequency distributions based on two dual Lotka laws (2002) 0.03 
    0.027873974 = product of:
  0.05574795 = sum of:
    0.05574795 = product of:
      0.1114959 = sum of:
        0.1114959 = weight(_text_:n in 1006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1114959 = score(doc=1006,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.57165027 = fieldWeight in 1006, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Fractional frequency distributions of, for example, authors with a certain (fractional) number of papers are very irregular and, therefore, not easy to model or to explain. This article gives a first attempt to this by assuming two simple Lotka laws (with exponent 2): one for the number of authors with n papers (total count here) and one for the number of papers with n authors, n E N. Based an an earlier made convolution model of Egghe, interpreted and reworked now for discrete scores, we are able to produce theoretical fractional frequency distributions with only one parameter, which are in very close agreement with the practical ones as found in a large dataset produced earlier by Rao. The article also shows that (irregular) fractional frequency distributions are a consequence of Lotka's law, and are not examples of breakdowns of this famous historical law.
  6. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.02 
    0.024515422 = product of:
  0.049030844 = sum of:
    0.049030844 = product of:
      0.09806169 = sum of:
        0.09806169 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09806169 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = 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
  7. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.02 
    0.021668777 = product of:
  0.043337554 = sum of:
    0.043337554 = product of:
      0.08667511 = sum of:
        0.08667511 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08667511 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = 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
  8. Umstätter, W.: Szientometrische Verfahren (2004) 0.02 
    0.020776035 = product of:
  0.04155207 = sum of:
    0.04155207 = product of:
      0.08310414 = sum of:
        0.08310414 = weight(_text_:n in 2920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08310414 = score(doc=2920,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.42608297 = fieldWeight in 2920, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Die Szientometrie beschäftigt sich mit der Messbarkeit wissenschaftlicher Leistungen anhand bibliothekarisch nachweisbarer Publikationsergebnisse. Bei genauer Betrachtung ist es ihr Ziel, die Wissenszunahme der Wissenschaft zu messen. Die wissenschaftliche Produktion in Form von Publikationen wächst seit über dreihundert Jahren konstant mit ca. 3,5% pro Jahr. Das entspricht einerVerdopplungsrate von 20 Jahren, die zuerst dem Bibliothekar Fremont Rider 1948 bei Büchern auffiel und die 1963 von Derek J. de Solla Price auch für das Wachstum von Zeitschriften und Bibliografien bestätigt wurde. Die Konstanz dieser Evolution, unabhängig aller sich ereignenden Katastrophen, ist nur zum Teil verstanden, macht aber den unaufhaltsamen Fortschritt der Wissenschaft deutlich. Alle 20 Jahre wird so viel publiziert wie in allen Jahrhunderten davor. Eine etwa gleiche Zunahme verzeichnen die Wissenschaftler, die damit etwa gleich produktiv bleiben. Von ihnen allen sind damit ca. 87% unsere heutigen Zeitgenossen. Aus diesem Wachstum heraus können wir abschätzen, dass in 100.000 laufenden Zeitschriften heute etwa 10 Mio. Publikationen jährlich erscheinen, die von 10 Mio. Wissenschaftlern verfasst werden. Dabei definieren sich nur die als Wissenschaftler, die durchschnittlich eine Publikation jährlich verfassen. Die gesamte Produktion an Buchtiteln, die bisher erschien, dürfte bei etwa 100 Mio. liegen. Davon sind etwa 20 Mio. als wissenschaftlich einzustufen. Wenn folglich 87% aller Wissenschaftler noch heute leben, so betrug die Gesamtzahl der Wissenschaftler in der Welt bisher 11,5 Mio., die in ihrem Leben durchschnittlich 1,5 Bücher pro Kopf verfassten, und etwa das 10-20fache an Zeitschriftenbeiträgen leisteten. Ein Teil dieser Bücher sind allerdings Neuauflagen und Übersetzungen. Nach Lotka, A. J. ist die Produktivität der Wissenschaftler eine schiefe Verteilung von der Form A/n**2, wobei A die Zahl der Autoren mit nur einer Publikation ist und n die Publikationen pro Autor. Während Price in seinen "Networks of Scientific Papers" Vergleichswerte von n**2,5 bis n**3 angab, zeigten Untersuchungen am Science Citation Index (SCI), die auf die gesamte naturwissenschaftliche Literatur hochgerechnet wurden, eher einen Wert von n**1,7. Auf die Tatsache, dass eine Verdopplungsrate der Wissenschaftler von 20 Jahren und eine solche der Menschheit von etwa 50 Jahren dazu führt, dass eines Tages alle Menschen Wissenschaftler werden, hat Price bereits 1963 hingewiesen. Dieser Zustand müsste bei 10 Mio. Wissenschaftlern und 6 Mrd. Menschen in etwa 300 Jahren eintreten, ein nur scheinbar absurder Gedanke, wenn man bedenkt, dass man sich vor 300 Jahren auch kaum vorstellen konnte, dass alle Menschen Lesen, Schreiben und Rechnen lernen können, und dass wir uns ungebildete Menschen immer weniger leisten können.
  9. Egghe, L.: Relations between the continuous and the discrete Lotka power function (2005) 0.02 
    0.019709876 = product of:
  0.03941975 = sum of:
    0.03941975 = product of:
      0.0788395 = sum of:
        0.0788395 = weight(_text_:n in 3464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0788395 = score(doc=3464,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.40421778 = fieldWeight in 3464, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The discrete Lotka power function describes the number of sources (e.g., authors) with n = 1, 2, 3, ... items (e.g., publications). As in econometrics, informetrics theory requires functions of a continuous variable j, replacing the discrete variable n. Now j represents item densities instead of number of items. The continuous Lotka power function describes the density of sources with item density j. The discrete Lotka function one obtains from data, obtained empirically; the continuous Lotka function is the one needed when one wants to apply Lotkaian informetrics, i.e., to determine properties that can be derived from the (continuous) model. It is, hence, important to know the relations between the two models. We show that the exponents of the discrete Lotka function (if not too high, i.e., within limits encountered in practice) and of the continuous Lotka function are approximately the same. This is important to know in applying theoretical results (from the continuous model), derived from practical data.
  10. Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005) 0.02 
    0.018386567 = product of:
  0.036773134 = sum of:
    0.036773134 = product of:
      0.07354627 = sum of:
        0.07354627 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07354627 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2007 17:02:22
  11. Leydesdorff, L.: Dynamic and evolutionary updates of classificatory schemes in scientific journal structures (2002) 0.02 
    0.016259817 = product of:
  0.032519635 = sum of:
    0.032519635 = product of:
      0.06503927 = sum of:
        0.06503927 = weight(_text_:n in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06503927 = score(doc=1249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.33346266 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Can the inclusion of new journals in the Science Citation Index be used for the indication of structural change in the database, and how can this change be compared with reorganizations of reiations among previously included journals? Change in the number of journals (n) is distinguished from change in the number of journal categories (m). Although the number of journals can be considered as a given at each moment in time, the number of journal categories is based an a reconstruction that is time-stamped ex post. The reflexive reconstruction is in need of an update when new information becomes available in a next year. Implications of this shift towards an evolutionary perspective are specified.
  12. Payne, N.; Thelwall, M.: Mathematical models for academic webs : linear relationship or non-linear power law? (2005) 0.02 
    0.016259817 = product of:
  0.032519635 = sum of:
    0.032519635 = product of:
      0.06503927 = sum of:
        0.06503927 = weight(_text_:n in 1066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06503927 = score(doc=1066,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.33346266 = fieldWeight in 1066, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1066)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  13. Egghe, L.: Empirical and combinatorial study of country occurrences in multi-authored papers (2006) 0.02 
    0.016093047 = product of:
  0.032186095 = sum of:
    0.032186095 = product of:
      0.06437219 = sum of:
        0.06437219 = weight(_text_:n in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06437219 = score(doc=81,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.33004245 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Papers written by several authors can be classified according to the countries of the author affiliations. The empirical part of this paper consists of two datasets. One dataset consists of 1,035 papers retrieved via the search "pedagog*" in the years 2004 and 2005 (up to October) in Academic Search Elite which is a case where phi(m) = the number of papers with m =1, 2,3 ... authors is decreasing, hence most of the papers have a low number of authors. Here we find that #, m = the number of times a country occurs j times in a m-authored paper, j =1, ..., m-1 is decreasing and that # m, m is much higher than all the other #j, m values. The other dataset consists of 3,271 papers retrieved via the search "enzyme" in the year 2005 (up to October) in the same database which is a case of a non-decreasing phi(m): most papers have 3 or 4 authors and we even find many papers with a much higher number of authors. In this case we show again that # m, m is much higher than the other #j, m values but that #j, m is not decreasing anymore in j =1, ..., m-1, although #1, m is (apart from # m, m) the largest number amongst the #j,m. The combinatorial part gives a proof of the fact that #j,m decreases for j = 1, m-1, supposing that all cases are equally possible. This shows that the first dataset is more conform with this model than the second dataset. Explanations for these findings are given. From the data we also find the (we think: new) distribution of number of papers with n =1, 2,3,... countries (i.e. where there are n different countries involved amongst the m (a n) authors of a paper): a fast decreasing function e.g. as a power law with a very large Lotka exponent.
  14. Sombatsompop, N.; Markpin, T.: Making an equality of ISI impact factors for different subject fields (2005) 0.01 
    0.013936987 = product of:
  0.027873974 = sum of:
    0.027873974 = product of:
      0.05574795 = sum of:
        0.05574795 = weight(_text_:n in 3467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05574795 = score(doc=3467,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 3467, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  15. Jacobs, N.; Woodfield, J.; Morris, A.: Using local citation data to relate the use of journal articles by academic researchers to the coverage of full-text document access systems (2000) 0.01 
    0.013936987 = product of:
  0.027873974 = sum of:
    0.027873974 = product of:
      0.05574795 = sum of:
        0.05574795 = weight(_text_:n in 4541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05574795 = score(doc=4541,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 4541, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4541)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  16. Shibata, N.; Kajikawa, Y.; Matsushima, K.: Topological analysis of citation networks to discover the future core articles (2007) 0.01 
    0.013936987 = product of:
  0.027873974 = sum of:
    0.027873974 = product of:
      0.05574795 = sum of:
        0.05574795 = weight(_text_:n in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05574795 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  17. Harwood, N.: Citers' use of citees' names : findings from a qualitative interview-based study (2008) 0.01 
    0.013936987 = product of:
  0.027873974 = sum of:
    0.027873974 = product of:
      0.05574795 = sum of:
        0.05574795 = weight(_text_:n in 1725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05574795 = score(doc=1725,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 1725, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1725)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  18. Qin, J.: Semantic patterns in bibliographically coupled documents (2002) 0.01 
    0.0131399175 = product of:
  0.026279835 = sum of:
    0.026279835 = product of:
      0.05255967 = sum of:
        0.05255967 = weight(_text_:n in 4266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05255967 = score(doc=4266,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.26947853 = fieldWeight in 4266, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Different research fields have different definitions for semantic patterns. For knowledge discovery and representation, semantic patterns represent the distribution of occurrences of words in documents and/or citations. In the broadest sense, the term semantic patterns may also refer to the distribution of occurrences of subjects or topics as reflected in documents. The semantic pattern in a set of documents or a group of topics therefore implies quantitative indicators that describe the subject characteristics of the documents being examined. These characteristics are often described by frequencies of keyword occurrences, number of co-occurred keywords, occurrences of coword, and number of cocitations. There are many ways to analyze and derive semantic patterns in documents and citations. A typical example is text mining in full-text documents, a research topic that studies how to extract useful associations and patterns through clustering, categorizing, and summarizing words in texts. One unique way in library and information science is to discover semantic patterns through bibliographically coupled citations. The history of bibliographical coupling goes back in the early 1960s when Kassler investigated associations among technical reports and technical information flow patterns. A number of definitions may facilitate our understanding of bibliographic coupling: (1) bibliographic coupling determines meaningful relations between papers by a study of each paper's bibliography; (2) a unit of coupling is the functional bond between papers when they share a single reference item; (3) coupling strength shows the order of combinations of units of coupling into a graded scale between groups of papers; and (4) a coupling criterion is the way by which the coupling units are combined between two or more papers. Kessler's classic paper an bibliographic coupling between scientific papers proposes the following two graded criteria: Criterion A: A number of papers constitute a related group GA if each member of the group has at least one coupling unit to a given test paper P0. The coupling strength between P0 and any member of GA is measured by the number of coupling units n between them. G(subA)(supn) is that portion of GA that is linked to P0 through n coupling units; Criterion B: A number of papers constitute a related group GB if each member of the group has at least one coupling unit to every other member of the group.
  19. Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review : a citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere (2008) 0.01 
    0.0131399175 = product of:
  0.026279835 = sum of:
    0.026279835 = product of:
      0.05255967 = sum of:
        0.05255967 = weight(_text_:n in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05255967 = score(doc=2381,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.26947853 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    All journals that use peer review have to deal with the following question: Does the peer review system fulfill its declared objective to select the best scientific work? We investigated the journal peer-review process at Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), one of the prime chemistry journals worldwide, and conducted a citation analysis for Communications that were accepted by the journal (n = 878) or rejected but published elsewhere (n = 959). The results of negative binomial-regression models show that holding all other model variables constant, being accepted by AC-IE increases the expected number of citations by up to 50%. A comparison of average citation counts (with 95% confidence intervals) of accepted and rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications with international scientific reference standards was undertaken. As reference standards, (a) mean citation counts for the journal set provided by Thomson Reuters corresponding to the field chemistry and (b) specific reference standards that refer to the subject areas of Chemical Abstracts were used. When compared to reference standards, the mean impact on chemical research is for the most part far above average not only for accepted Communications but also for rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications. However, average and below-average scientific impact is to be expected significantly less frequently for accepted Communications than for rejected Communications. All in all, the results of this study confirm that peer review at AC-IE is able to select the best scientific work with the highest impact on chemical research.
  20. Raan, A.F.J. van: Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators : research group indicator distributions and correlations (2006) 0.01 
    0.013001267 = product of:
  0.026002534 = sum of:
    0.026002534 = product of:
      0.052005067 = sum of:
        0.052005067 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052005067 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 5275, 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=5275)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:20:22

Authors

Languages

  • e 46
  • d 6

Types

  • a 51
  • el 1
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications