Search (56 results, page 1 of 3)

0.022997938 = product of:
  0.045995876 = sum of:
    0.045995876 = product of:
      0.068993814 = sum of:
        0.013171425 = weight(_text_:a in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013171425 = score(doc=2351,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.24964198 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
        0.055822387 = weight(_text_:h in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055822387 = score(doc=2351,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.4910324 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A time-dependent h-type indicator is proposed. This indicator depends on the size of the h-core, the number of citations received, and recent change in the value of the h-index. As such, it tries to combine in a dynamic way older information about the source (e.g., a scientist or research institute that is evaluated) with recent information.

Object

h-index

Type

a

0.022905817 = product of:
  0.045811635 = sum of:
    0.045811635 = product of:
      0.06871745 = sum of:
        0.0067215143 = weight(_text_:a in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0067215143 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
        0.061995935 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061995935 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, 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=4992)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 2.2012 12:53:22

Type

a

0.02219227 = product of:
  0.04438454 = sum of:
    0.04438454 = product of:
      0.06657681 = sum of:
        0.010754423 = weight(_text_:a in 695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010754423 = score(doc=695,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 695, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=695)
        0.055822387 = weight(_text_:h in 695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055822387 = score(doc=695,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.4910324 = fieldWeight in 695, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=695)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An h-type index is proposed which depends on the obtained citations of articles belonging to the h-core. This weighted h-index, denoted as hw, is presented in a continuous setting and in a discrete one. It is shown that in a continuous setting the new index enjoys many good properties. In the discrete setting some small deviations from the ideal may occur.

Object

h-index

Type

a

0.021342468 = product of:
  0.042684935 = sum of:
    0.042684935 = product of:
      0.0640274 = sum of:
        0.0105208345 = weight(_text_:a in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0105208345 = score(doc=2717,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
        0.053506564 = weight(_text_:h in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053506564 = score(doc=2717,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.47066164 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Temporal growth of the h-index in a diachronous cumulative time series is predicted to be linear by Hirsch (2005), whereas other models predict a concave increase. Actual data generally yield a linear growth or S-shaped growth. We study the h-index's growth in computer simulations of the publication-citation process. In most simulations the h-index grows linearly in time. Only occasionally does an S-shape occur, while in our simulations a concave increase is very rare. The latter is often signalled by the occurrence of plateaus - periods of h-index stagnation. Several parameters and their influence on the h-index's growth are determined and discussed.

Type

a

0.02005351 = product of:
  0.04010702 = sum of:
    0.04010702 = product of:
      0.060160525 = sum of:
        0.0066539603 = weight(_text_:a in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0066539603 = score(doc=243,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
        0.053506564 = weight(_text_:h in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053506564 = score(doc=243,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.47066164 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Based on earlier results about the shifted Lotka function, we prove an implicit functional relation between the Hirsch index (h-index) and the total number of sources (T). It is shown that the corresponding function, h(T), is concavely increasing. Next, we construct an implicit relation between the h-index and the impact factor IF (an average number of items per source). The corresponding function h(IF) is increasing and we show that if the parameter C in the numerator of the shifted Lotka function is high, then the relation between the h-index and the impact factor is almost linear.

Object

h-index

Type

a

0.016432095 = product of:
  0.03286419 = sum of:
    0.03286419 = product of:
      0.049296286 = sum of:
        0.012098727 = weight(_text_:a in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012098727 = score(doc=7659,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
        0.03719756 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03719756 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It is possible, using ISI's Journal Citation Report (JCR), to calculate average impact factors (AIF) for LCR's subject categories but it can be more useful to know the global Impact Factor (GIF) of a subject category and compare the 2 values. Reports results of a study to compare the relationships between AIFs and GIFs of subjects, based on the particular case of the average impact factor of a subfield versus the impact factor of this subfield as a whole, the difference being studied between an average of quotients, denoted as AQ, and a global average, obtained as a quotient of averages, and denoted as GQ. In the case of impact factors, AQ becomes the average impact factor of a field, and GQ becomes its global impact factor. Discusses a number of applications of this technique in the context of informetrics and scientometrics

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170

Type

a

0.015776329 = product of:
  0.031552657 = sum of:
    0.031552657 = product of:
      0.047328986 = sum of:
        0.012023811 = weight(_text_:a in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012023811 = score(doc=6759,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
        0.035305176 = weight(_text_:h in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035305176 = score(doc=6759,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.31055614 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using a power-law model, the two best-known topics in citation analysis, namely the impact factor and the Hirsch index, are unified into one relation (not a function). The validity of our model is, at least in a qualitative way, confirmed by real data.

Object

h-index

Type

a

0.015775122 = product of:
  0.031550243 = sum of:
    0.031550243 = product of:
      0.04732536 = sum of:
        0.009878568 = weight(_text_:a in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009878568 = score(doc=2638,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
        0.037446793 = weight(_text_:h in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037446793 = score(doc=2638,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.32939452 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Hirsch-type indices are studied with special attention to the AR**2-index introduced by Jin. The article consists of two parts: a theoretical part and a practical illustration. In the theoretical part, we recall the definition of the AR**2-index and show that an alternative definition, the so-called AR**2,1, does not have the properties expected for this type of index. A practical example shows the existence of some of these mathematical properties and illustrates the difference between different h-type indices. Clearly the h-index itself is the most robust of all. It is shown that excluding so-called non-WoS source articles may have a significant influence on the R-and, especially, the g-index.

Object

h-index

Type

a

0.015087794 = product of:
  0.030175587 = sum of:
    0.030175587 = product of:
      0.04526338 = sum of:
        0.008065818 = weight(_text_:a in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008065818 = score(doc=5270,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
        0.03719756 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03719756 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The age distribution of a country's scientists is an important element in the study of its research capacity. In this article we investigate the age distribution of Japanese scientists in order to find out whether major events such as World War II had an appreciable effect on its features. Data have been obtained from population censuses taken in Japan from 1970 to 1995. A comparison with the situation in China and the United States has been made. We find that the group of scientific researchers outside academia is dominated by the young: those younger than age 35. The personnel group in higher education, on the other hand, is dominated by the baby boomers: those who were born after World War II. Contrary to the Chinese situation we could not find any influence of major nondemographic events. The only influence we found was the increase in enrollment of university students after World War II caused by the reform of the Japanese university system. Female participation in the scientific and university systems in Japan, though still low, is increasing.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:26:24

Type

a

0.0115149 = product of:
  0.0230298 = sum of:
    0.0230298 = product of:
      0.0345447 = sum of:
        0.008065818 = weight(_text_:a in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008065818 = score(doc=4994,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4994, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4994)
        0.026478881 = weight(_text_:h in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026478881 = score(doc=4994,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.2329171 = fieldWeight in 4994, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4994)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Contrary to what one might expect, Nobel laureates and Fields medalists have a rather large fraction (10% or more) of uncited publications. This is the case for (in total) 75 examined researchers from the fields of mathematics (Fields medalists), physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine (Nobel laureates). We study several indicators for these researchers, including the h-index, total number of publications, average number of citations per publication, the number (and fraction) of uncited publications, and their interrelations. The most remarkable result is a positive correlation between the h-index and the number of uncited articles. We also present a Lotkaian model, which partially explains the empirically found regularities.

Type

a

0.010270093 = product of:
  0.020540185 = sum of:
    0.020540185 = product of:
      0.030810278 = sum of:
        0.0060119056 = weight(_text_:a in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060119056 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
        0.024798373 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024798373 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  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

Type

a

0.009797825 = product of:
  0.01959565 = sum of:
    0.01959565 = product of:
      0.029393472 = sum of:
        0.010670074 = weight(_text_:a in 5205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010670074 = score(doc=5205,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 5205, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5205)
        0.018723397 = weight(_text_:h in 5205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018723397 = score(doc=5205,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 5205, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5205)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Fractional counting of authors of multi-authored papers has been shown to lead to a breakdown of Lotka's Law despite its robust character under most circumstances. Kretschmer and Rousseau use the normal count method of full credit for each author on two five-year bibliographies from each of 13 Dutch physics institutes where high co-authorship is a common occurrence. Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were preformed to see if the Lotka distribution fit the data. All bibliographies up to 40 authors fit acceptably; no bibliography with a paper with over 100 authors fits the distribution. The underlying traditional "success breeds success" mechanism assumes new items on a one by one basis, but Egghe's generalized model would still account for the process. It seems unlikely that Lotka's Law will hold in a high co-authorship environment.

Type

a

0.008929739 = product of:
  0.017859478 = sum of:
    0.017859478 = product of:
      0.026789214 = sum of:
        0.008065818 = weight(_text_:a in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008065818 = score(doc=82,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
        0.018723397 = weight(_text_:h in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018723397 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

References to printed documents made on the web are called web-to-print references. These printed documents then in turn receive web-to-print citations. Webto-print citations and web-to-print references are the topic of this article, in which we study the online impact of printed sources. Web-to-print citations are discussed from a structural point of view and a small-scale experiment related to web-to-print citations for local history journals is performed. The main research question in setting up this experiment concerns the possibility of using web-to-print citations as a substitute for classical citation indexes by gauging the importance, visibility and impact of journals in the humanities. Results show the importance of web bibliographies in the field, but, at least for what concerns the journals and the period studied here, the amount of received web-to-print citations is too small to draw general conclusions.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.422-426

Type

a

0.002688606 = product of:
  0.005377212 = sum of:
    0.005377212 = product of:
      0.016131636 = sum of:
        0.016131636 = weight(_text_:a in 7304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016131636 = score(doc=7304,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.30574775 = fieldWeight in 7304, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7304)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It is shown that generalized Leimkuhler functions give proper fits to a large variety of Bradford curves, including those exhibited a so-called Groos droop or a rising tail

Type

a

0.0025348421 = product of:
  0.0050696842 = sum of:
    0.0050696842 = product of:
      0.015209052 = sum of:
        0.015209052 = weight(_text_:a in 5653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015209052 = score(doc=5653,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 5653, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5653)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.002328401 = product of:
  0.004656802 = sum of:
    0.004656802 = product of:
      0.013970406 = sum of:
        0.013970406 = weight(_text_:a in 3007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013970406 = score(doc=3007,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 3007, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3007)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A simple heuristic method is proposed to use an existing thesaurus for weighted indexing

Type

a

0.0021255296 = product of:
  0.004251059 = sum of:
    0.004251059 = product of:
      0.012753177 = sum of:
        0.012753177 = weight(_text_:a in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012753177 = score(doc=297,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.24171482 = fieldWeight in 297, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=297)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to introduce a general framework for the analysis of knowledge integration and diffusion using bibliometric data. Design/methodology/approach - The authors propose that in order to characterise knowledge integration and diffusion of a given issue (the source, for example articles on a topic or by an organisation, etc.), one has to choose a set of elements from the source (the intermediary set, for example references, keywords, etc.). This set can then be classified into categories (cats), thus making it possible to investigate its diversity. The set can also be characterised according to the coherence of a network associated to it. Findings - This framework allows a methodology to be developed to assess knowledge integration and diffusion. Such methodologies can be useful for a number of science policy issues, including the assessment of interdisciplinarity in research and dynamics of research networks. Originality/value - The main contribution of this article is to provide a simple and easy to use generalisation of an existing approach to study interdisciplinarity, bringing knowledge integration and knowledge diffusion together in one framework.

Type

a

0.0020747366 = product of:
  0.0041494733 = sum of:
    0.0041494733 = product of:
      0.01244842 = sum of:
        0.01244842 = weight(_text_:a in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01244842 = score(doc=2157,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Let (DS, DQ, sim) be a retrieval system consisting of a document space DS, a query space QS, and a function sim, expressing the similarity between a document and a query. Following D.M. Everett and S.C. Cater (1992), we introduce topologies on the document space. These topologies are generated by the similarity function sim and the query space QS. 3 topologies will be studied: the retrieval topology, the similarity topology and the (pseudo-)metric one. It is shown that the retrieval topology is the coarsest of the three, while the (pseudo-)metric is the strongest. These 3 topologies are generally different, reflecting distinct topological aspects of information retrieval. We present necessary and sufficient conditions for these topological aspects to be equal

Type

a

0.0020164545 = product of:
  0.004032909 = sum of:
    0.004032909 = product of:
      0.012098727 = sum of:
        0.012098727 = weight(_text_:a in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012098727 = score(doc=250,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, we report on a discrete choice experiment to determine the willingness-to-wait (WTW) in the context of journal submissions. Respondents to our survey are mostly active in the information sciences, including librarians. Besides WTW, other attributes included in the study are the quality of the editorial board, the quality of referee reports, the probability of being accepted, the ISI impact factor, and the standing of the journal among peers. Interaction effects originating from scientists' personal characteristics (age, region of origin, motivations to publish) with the WTW are highlighted. A difference was made between submitting a high quality article and a standard article. Among the interesting results obtained from our analysis we mention that for a high-quality article, researchers are willing to wait some 18 months longer for a journal with an ISI impact factor above 2 than for a journal without an impact factor, keeping all other factors constant. For a standard article, the WTW decreases to some 8 months. Gender had no effect on our conclusions.

Type

a

0.0020039687 = product of:
  0.0040079374 = sum of:
    0.0040079374 = product of:
      0.012023811 = sum of:
        0.012023811 = weight(_text_:a in 3210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012023811 = score(doc=3210,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 3210, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3210)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this communication I give a brief introduction to Valiant's probably approximately correct (PAC) theory, provide an extension that goes beyond Valiant's ideas (and beyond the domain for which this theory was meant), and come to an interpretation in terms of research evaluation. As such, PAC provides a framework for a theory of research evaluation.

Type

a