-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.02
0.023110315 = product of:
0.04622063 = sum of:
0.04622063 = product of:
0.069330946 = sum of:
0.032717273 = weight(_text_:r in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032717273 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14909357 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
0.036613673 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036613673 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1577219 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.
- Date
- 8. 1.2019 18:22:45
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor : normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science (2011)
0.02
0.020038694 = product of:
0.04007739 = sum of:
0.04007739 = product of:
0.060116082 = sum of:
0.029604686 = weight(_text_:c in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029604686 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15536073 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
0.030511396 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030511396 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1577219 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:51:07
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Opthof, T.: Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time : principles for comparing sets of documents (2011)
0.01
0.012193008 = product of:
0.024386017 = sum of:
0.024386017 = product of:
0.07315805 = sum of:
0.07315805 = weight(_text_:r in 4485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07315805 = score(doc=4485,freq=10.0), product of:
0.14909357 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.49068546 = fieldWeight in 4485, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4485)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We submit newly developed citation impact indicators based not on arithmetic averages of citations but on percentile ranks. Citation distributions are-as a rule-highly skewed and should not be arithmetically averaged. With percentile ranks, the citation score of each paper is rated in terms of its percentile in the citation distribution. The percentile ranks approach allows for the formulation of a more abstract indicator scheme that can be used to organize and/or schematize different impact indicators according to three degrees of freedom: the selection of the reference sets, the evaluation criteria, and the choice of whether or not to define the publication sets as independent. Bibliometric data of seven principal investigators (PIs) of the Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam are used as an exemplary dataset. We demonstrate that the proposed family indicators [R(6), R(100), R(6, k), R(100, k)] are an improvement on averages-based indicators because one can account for the shape of the distributions of citations over papers.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Wagner, C,; Bornmann, L.: Replicability and the public/private divide (2016)
0.01
0.011841875 = product of:
0.02368375 = sum of:
0.02368375 = product of:
0.07105125 = sum of:
0.07105125 = weight(_text_:c in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07105125 = score(doc=3023,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15536073 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.45733082 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Rotolo, D.; Leydesdorff, L.: Matching Medline/PubMed data with Web of Science: A routine in R language (2015)
0.01
0.007711535 = product of:
0.01542307 = sum of:
0.01542307 = product of:
0.04626921 = sum of:
0.04626921 = weight(_text_:r in 2224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04626921 = score(doc=2224,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14909357 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.3103367 = fieldWeight in 2224, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2224)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We present a novel routine, namely medlineR, based on the R language, that allows the user to match data from Medline/PubMed with records indexed in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) database. The matching allows exploiting the rich and controlled vocabulary of medical subject headings (MeSH) of Medline/PubMed with additional fields of WoS. The integration provides data (e.g., citation data, list of cited reference, list of the addresses of authors' host organizations, WoS subject categories) to perform a variety of scientometric analyses. This brief communication describes medlineR, the method on which it relies, and the steps the user should follow to perform the matching across the two databases. To demonstrate the differences from Leydesdorff and Opthof (Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1076-1080), we conclude this artcle by testing the routine on the MeSH category "Burgada syndrome."
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Park, H.W.; Wagner, C.: International coauthorship relations in the Social Sciences Citation Index : is internationalization leading the Network? (2014)
0.01
0.0069778925 = product of:
0.013955785 = sum of:
0.013955785 = product of:
0.041867353 = sum of:
0.041867353 = weight(_text_:c in 1505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041867353 = score(doc=1505,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15536073 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.2694848 = fieldWeight in 1505, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1505)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- International coauthorship relations have increasingly shaped another dynamic in the natural and life sciences during recent decades. However, much less is known about such internationalization in the social sciences. In this study, we analyze international and domestic coauthorship relations of all citable items in the DVD version of the Social Sciences Citation Index 2011 (SSCI). Network statistics indicate 4 groups of nations: (a) an Asian-Pacific one to which all Anglo-Saxon nations (including the United Kingdom and Ireland) are attributed, (b) a continental European one including also the Latin-American countries, (c) the Scandinavian nations, and (d) a community of African nations. Within the EU-28, 11 of the EU-15 states have dominant positions. In many respects, the network parameters are not so different from the Science Citation Index. In addition to these descriptive statistics, we address the question of the relative weights of the international versus domestic networks. An information-theoretical test is proposed at the level of organizational addresses within each nation; the results are mixed, but the international dimension is more important than the national one in the aggregated sets (as in the Science Citation Index). In some countries (e.g., France), however, the national distribution is leading more than the international one. Decomposition of the United States in terms of states shows a similarly mixed result; more U.S. states are domestically oriented in the SSCI and more internationally in the SCI. The international networks have grown during the last decades in addition to the national ones but not by replacing them.
-
Shelton, R.D.; Leydesdorff, L.: Publish or patent : bibliometric evidence for empirical trade-offs in national funding strategies (2012)
0.01
0.0064262794 = product of:
0.012852559 = sum of:
0.012852559 = product of:
0.038557675 = sum of:
0.038557675 = weight(_text_:r in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038557675 = score(doc=70,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14909357 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.25861394 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Multivariate linear regression models suggest a trade-off in allocations of national research and development (R&D). Government funding and spending in the higher education sector encourage publications as a long-term research benefit. Conversely, other components such as industrial funding and spending in the business sector encourage patenting. Our results help explain why the United States trails the European Union in publications: The focus in the United States is on industrial funding-some 70% of its total R&D investment. Likewise, our results also help explain why the European Union trails the United States in patenting, since its focus on government funding is less effective than industrial funding in predicting triadic patenting. Government funding contributes negatively to patenting in a multiple regression, and this relationship is significant in the case of triadic patenting. We provide new forecasts about the relationships of the United States, the European Union, and China for publishing; these results suggest much later dates for changes than previous forecasts because Chinese growth has been slowing down since 2003. Models for individual countries might be more successful than regression models whose parameters are averaged over a set of countries because nations can be expected to differ historically in terms of the institutional arrangements and funding schemes.
-
Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The construction and globalization of the knowledge base in inter-human communication systems (2003)
0.01
0.006102279 = product of:
0.012204558 = sum of:
0.012204558 = product of:
0.036613673 = sum of:
0.036613673 = weight(_text_:22 in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036613673 = score(doc=1621,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1577219 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1621, 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=1621)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 5.2003 19:48:04
-
Leydesdorff, L.: Can networks of journal-journal citations be used as indicators of change in the social sciences? (2003)
0.01
0.006102279 = product of:
0.012204558 = sum of:
0.012204558 = product of:
0.036613673 = sum of:
0.036613673 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036613673 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1577219 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, 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=4460)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 6.11.2005 19:02:22
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Sun, Y.: National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan : university-industry-government versus international coauthorship relations (2009)
0.01
0.006102279 = product of:
0.012204558 = sum of:
0.012204558 = product of:
0.036613673 = sum of:
0.036613673 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036613673 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1577219 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2761, 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=2761)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:07:20
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Probst, C.: ¬The delineation of an interdisciplinary specialty in terms of a journal set : the case of communication studies (2009)
0.01
0.0059209373 = product of:
0.011841875 = sum of:
0.011841875 = product of:
0.035525624 = sum of:
0.035525624 = weight(_text_:c in 2952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035525624 = score(doc=2952,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15536073 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 2952, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2952)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Radicchi, F.; Bornmann, L.; Castellano, C.; Nooy, W. de: Field-normalized impact factors (IFs) : a comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs (2013)
0.01
0.0059209373 = product of:
0.011841875 = sum of:
0.011841875 = product of:
0.035525624 = sum of:
0.035525624 = weight(_text_:c in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035525624 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15536073 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Goldstone, R.L.: Interdisciplinarity at the journal and specialty level : the changing knowledge bases of the journal cognitive science (2014)
0.01
0.0059209373 = product of:
0.011841875 = sum of:
0.011841875 = product of:
0.035525624 = sum of:
0.035525624 = weight(_text_:c in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035525624 = score(doc=1187,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15536073 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Using the referencing patterns in articles in Cognitive Science over three decades, we analyze the knowledge base of this literature in terms of its changing disciplinary composition. Three periods are distinguished: (A) construction of the interdisciplinary space in the 1980s, (B) development of an interdisciplinary orientation in the 1990s, and (C) reintegration into "cognitive psychology" in the 2000s. The fluidity and fuzziness of the interdisciplinary delineations in the different visualizations can be reduced and clarified using factor analysis. We also explore newly available routines ("CorText") to analyze this development in terms of "tubes" using an alluvial map and compare the results with an animation (using "Visone"). The historical specificity of this development can be compared with the development of "artificial intelligence" into an integrated specialty during this same period. Interdisciplinarity should be defined differently at the level of journals and of specialties.
-
Egghe, L.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The relation between Pearson's correlation coefficient r and Salton's cosine measure (2009)
0.01
0.005452879 = product of:
0.010905758 = sum of:
0.010905758 = product of:
0.032717273 = sum of:
0.032717273 = weight(_text_:r in 2803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032717273 = score(doc=2803,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14909357 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 2803, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2803)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Hellsten, I.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The construction of interdisciplinarity : the development of the knowledge base and programmatic focus of the journal Climatic Change, 1977-2013 (2016)
0.01
0.0050852327 = product of:
0.010170465 = sum of:
0.010170465 = product of:
0.030511396 = sum of:
0.030511396 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030511396 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1577219 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3089, 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=3089)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 24. 8.2016 17:53:22
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Johnson, M.W.; Ivanova, I.: Toward a calculus of redundancy : signification, codification, and anticipation in cultural evolution (2018)
0.01
0.0050852327 = product of:
0.010170465 = sum of:
0.010170465 = product of:
0.030511396 = sum of:
0.030511396 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030511396 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1577219 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4463, 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=4463)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 29. 9.2018 11:22:09
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Rafols, I.; Chen, C.: Interactive overlays of journals and the measurement of interdisciplinarity on the basis of aggregated journal-journal citations (2013)
0.00
0.0049341144 = product of:
0.009868229 = sum of:
0.009868229 = product of:
0.029604686 = sum of:
0.029604686 = weight(_text_:c in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029604686 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15536073 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Chen, C.; Leydesdorff, L.: Patterns of connections and movements in dual-map overlays : a new method of publication portfolio analysis (2014)
0.00
0.0049341144 = product of:
0.009868229 = sum of:
0.009868229 = product of:
0.029604686 = sum of:
0.029604686 = weight(_text_:c in 1200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029604686 = score(doc=1200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15536073 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 1200, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1200)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.; Leydesdorff, L.: BRICS countries and scientific excellence : a bibliometric analysis of most frequently cited papers (2015)
0.00
0.0049341144 = product of:
0.009868229 = sum of:
0.009868229 = product of:
0.029604686 = sum of:
0.029604686 = weight(_text_:c in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029604686 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15536073 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016)
0.00
0.0049341144 = product of:
0.009868229 = sum of:
0.009868229 = product of:
0.029604686 = sum of:
0.029604686 = weight(_text_:c in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029604686 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15536073 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.04503986 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.
