Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

Haustein, S.; Sugimoto, C.; Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication : Guest editorial (2015) 0.01

0.011983559 = product of:
  0.023967117 = sum of:
    0.023967117 = product of:
      0.035950676 = sum of:
        0.017704222 = weight(_text_:c in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017704222 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.114332706 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
        0.018246453 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018246453 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date: 20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01

0.008601462 = product of:
  0.017202923 = sum of:
    0.017202923 = product of:
      0.051608767 = sum of:
        0.051608767 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051608767 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date: 22. 3.2009 19:22:35

Hu, B.; Dong, X.; Zhang, C.; Bowman, T.D.; Ding, Y.; Milojevic, S.; Ni, C.; Yan, E.; Larivière, V.: ¬A lead-lag analysis of the topic evolution patterns for preprints and publications (2015) 0.01

0.008345851 = product of:
  0.016691701 = sum of:
    0.016691701 = product of:
      0.050075103 = sum of:
        0.050075103 = weight(_text_:c in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050075103 = score(doc=2337,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.32338172 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Bertin, M.; Atanassova, I.; Gingras, Y.; Larivière, V.: ¬The invariant distribution of references in scientific articles (2016) 0.01

0.0070558335 = product of:
  0.014111667 = sum of:
    0.014111667 = product of:
      0.042335 = sum of:
        0.042335 = weight(_text_:i in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042335 = score(doc=2497,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 2497, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2497)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Larivière, V.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Macaluso, B.; Milojevi´c, S.; Cronin, B.; Thelwall, M.: arXiv E-prints and the journal of record : an analysis of roles and relationships (2014) 0.01
```
0.0069548762 = product of:
  0.0139097525 = sum of:
    0.0139097525 = product of:
      0.041729257 = sum of:
        0.041729257 = weight(_text_:c in 1285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041729257 = score(doc=1285,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.2694848 = fieldWeight in 1285, 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=1285)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Since its creation in 1991, arXiv has become central to the diffusion of research in a number of fields. Combining data from the entirety of arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS), this article investigates (a) the proportion of papers across all disciplines that are on arXiv and the proportion of arXiv papers that are in the WoS, (b) the elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication, and (c) the aging characteristics and scientific impact of arXiv e-prints and their published version. It shows that the proportion of WoS papers found on arXiv varies across the specialties of physics and mathematics, and that only a few specialties make extensive use of the repository. Elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication has shortened but remains longer in mathematics than in physics. In physics, mathematics, as well as in astronomy and astrophysics, arXiv versions are cited more promptly and decay faster than WoS papers. The arXiv versions of papers-both published and unpublished-have lower citation rates than published papers, although there is almost no difference in the impact of the arXiv versions of published and unpublished papers.

Lachance, C.; Poirier, S.; Larivière, V.: ¬The kiss of death? : the effect of being cited in a review on subsequent citations (2014) 0.01

0.0059014075 = product of:
  0.011802815 = sum of:
    0.011802815 = product of:
      0.035408445 = sum of:
        0.035408445 = weight(_text_:c in 1310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035408445 = score(doc=1310,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 1310, 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=1310)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Shu, F.; Julien, C.-A.; Larivière, V.: Does the Web of Science accurately represent chinese scientific performance? (2019) 0.01

0.0059014075 = product of:
  0.011802815 = sum of:
    0.011802815 = product of:
      0.035408445 = sum of:
        0.035408445 = weight(_text_:c in 5388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035408445 = score(doc=5388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 5388, 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=5388)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Larivière, V.; Archambault, E.; Gingras, Y.: Long-term variations in the aging of scientific literature : from exponential growth to steady-state science (1900-2004) (2008) 0.01
```
0.0058798613 = product of:
  0.011759723 = sum of:
    0.011759723 = product of:
      0.035279166 = sum of:
        0.035279166 = weight(_text_:i in 1357) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035279166 = score(doc=1357,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 1357, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1357)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Despite a very large number of studies on the aging and obsolescence of scientific literature, no study has yet measured, over a very long time period, the changes in the rates at which scientific literature becomes obsolete. This article studies the evolution of the aging phenomenon and, in particular, how the age of cited literature has changed over more than 100 years of scientific activity. It shows that the average and median ages of cited literature have undergone several changes over the period. Specifically, both World War I and World War II had the effect of significantly increasing the age of the cited literature. The major finding of this article is that contrary to a widely held belief, the age of cited material has risen continuously since the mid-1960s. In other words, during that period, researchers were relying on an increasingly old body of literature. Our data suggest that this phenomenon is a direct response to the steady-state dynamics of modern science that followed its exponential growth; however, we also have observed that online preprint archives such as arXiv have had the opposite effect in some subfields.
Kirchik, O.; Gingras, Y.; Larivière, V.: Changes in publication languages and citation practices and their effect on the scientific impact of Russian science (1993-2010) (2012) 0.01
```
0.0058798613 = product of:
  0.011759723 = sum of:
    0.011759723 = product of:
      0.035279166 = sum of:
        0.035279166 = weight(_text_:i in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035279166 = score(doc=284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 284, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=284)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

This article analyzes the effects of publication language on the international scientific visibility of Russia using the Web of Science (WoS). Like other developing and transition countries, it is subject to a growing pressure to "internationalize" its scientific activities, which primarily means a shift to English as a language of scientific communication. But to what extent does the transition to English improve the impact of research? The case of Russia is of interest in this respect as the existence of many combinations of national journals and languages of publications (namely, Russian and English, including translated journals) provide a kind of natural I experiment to test the effects of language and publisher's country on the international visibility of research through citations as well as on the referencing practices of authors. Our analysis points to the conclusion that the production of original English-language papers in foreign journals is a more efficient strategy of internationalization than the mere translation of domestic journals. If the objective of a country is to maximize the international visibility of its scientific work, then the efforts should go into the promotion of publication in reputed English-language journals to profit from the added effect provided by the Matthew effect of these venues.

Haustein, S.; Peters, I.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.; Larivière, V.: Tweeting biomedicine : an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature (2014) 0.01

0.0058798613 = product of:
  0.011759723 = sum of:
    0.011759723 = product of:
      0.035279166 = sum of:
        0.035279166 = weight(_text_:i in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035279166 = score(doc=1229,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Atanassova, I.; Bertin, M.; Larivière, V.: On the composition of scientific abstracts (2016) 0.01

0.0058798613 = product of:
  0.011759723 = sum of:
    0.011759723 = product of:
      0.035279166 = sum of:
        0.035279166 = weight(_text_:i in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035279166 = score(doc=3028,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 3028, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3028)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Lisée, C.; Larivière, V.; Archambault, E.: Conference proceedings as a source of scientific information : a bibliometric analysis (2008) 0.00

0.0049178395 = product of:
  0.009835679 = sum of:
    0.009835679 = product of:
      0.029507035 = sum of:
        0.029507035 = weight(_text_:c in 2356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029507035 = score(doc=2356,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 2356, 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=2356)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Vincent-Lamarre, P.; Boivin, J.; Gargouri, Y.; Larivière, V.; Harnad, S.: Estimating open access mandate effectiveness : the MELIBEA score (2016) 0.00
```
0.0049178395 = product of:
  0.009835679 = sum of:
    0.009835679 = product of:
      0.029507035 = sum of:
        0.029507035 = weight(_text_:c in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029507035 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 3162, 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=3162)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

MELIBEA is a directory of institutional open-access policies for research output that uses a composite formula with eight weighted conditions to estimate the "strength" of open access (OA) mandates (registered in ROARMAP). We analyzed total Web of Science-(WoS)-indexed publication output in years 2011-2013 for 67 institutions in which OA was mandated to estimate the mandates' effectiveness: How well did the MELIBEA score and its individual conditions predict what percentage of the WoS-indexed articles is actually deposited in each institution's OA repository, and when? We found a small but significant positive correlation (0.18) between the MELIBEA "strength" score and deposit percentage. For three of the eight MELIBEA conditions (deposit timing, internal use, and opt-outs), one value of each was strongly associated with deposit percentage or latency ([a] immediate deposit required; [b] deposit required for performance evaluation; [c] unconditional opt-out allowed for the OA requirement but no opt-out for deposit requirement). When we updated the initial values and weights of the MELIBEA formula to reflect the empirical association we had found, the score's predictive power for mandate effectiveness doubled (0.36). There are not yet enough OA mandates to test further mandate conditions that might contribute to mandate effectiveness, but the present findings already suggest that it would be productive for existing and future mandates to adopt the three identified conditions so as to maximize their effectiveness, and thereby the growth of OA.

Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Years

Themes