Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0030444188 = product of:
  0.0060888375 = sum of:
    0.0060888375 = product of:
      0.012177675 = sum of:
        0.012177675 = weight(_text_:a in 5670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012177675 = score(doc=5670,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 5670, 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=5670)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Prior research in status ordering has used numeric indicators to examine the impact of a status change on the perception of a scientist's work. This study measures the perception change directly as reflected in citation sentiment, with the attainment of a Nobel Prize in Chemistry or a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine considered the status change. The article identifies 12,393 citances to 25 Nobel articles in PubMed Central and includes a control article set of 75 articles with 30,851 citances. The results show a moderate increase in citation sentiment toward Nobel articles postaward. Dynamically, for Nobel articles there is a steady sentiment increase, and a Nobel Prize seems to co-occur with this trend. This trend, however, is not evident in the control article set.

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=4008,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4008, 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=4008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study provides evidence of data set mentions and citations in multiple disciplines based on a content analysis of 600 publications in PLoS One. We find that data set mentions and citations varied greatly among disciplines in terms of how data sets were collected, referenced, and curated. While a majority of articles provided free access to data, formal ways of data attribution such as DOIs and data citations were used in a limited number of articles. In addition, data reuse took place in less than 30% of the publications that used data, suggesting that researchers are still inclined to create and use their own data sets, rather than reusing previously curated data. This paper provides a comprehensive understanding of how data sets are used in science and helps institutions and publishers make useful data policies.

Type

a

0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 4257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=4257,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 4257, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4257)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although researchers have begun to investigate the difference in scientific impact between closed-access and open-access journals, studies that focus specifically on dynamic and disciplinary differences remain scarce. This study serves to fill this gap by using a large longitudinal dataset to examine these differences. Using CiteScore as a proxy for journal scientific impact, we employ a series of statistical tests to identify the quartile categories and disciplinary areas in which impact trends differ notably between closed- and open-access journals. We find that closed-access journals have a noticeable advantage in social sciences (for example, business and economics), whereas open-access journals perform well in medical and healthcare domains (for example, health profession and nursing). Moreover, we find that after controlling for a journal's rank and disciplinary differences, there are statistically more closed-access journals in the top 10%, Quartile 1, and Quartile 2 categories as measured by CiteScore; in contrast, more open-access journals in Quartile 4 gained scientific impact from 2011 to 2015. Considering dynamic and disciplinary trends in tandem, we find that more closed-access journals in Social Sciences gained in impact, whereas in biochemistry and medicine, more open-access journals experienced such gains.

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=391,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 391, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=391)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between team's gender composition and outputs of funded projects using a large data set of National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 grants and their associated publications between 1990 and 2017. This study finds that while the women investigators' presence in NIH grants is generally low, higher women investigator presence is on average related to slightly lower number of publications. This study finds empirically that women investigators elect to work in fields in which fewer publications per million-dollar funding is the norm. For fields where women investigators are relatively well represented, they are as productive as men. The overall lower productivity of women investigators may be attributed to the low representation of women in high productivity fields dominated by men investigators. The findings shed light on possible reasons for gender disparity in grant productivity.

Type

a