Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01288424 = product of:
  0.02576848 = sum of:
    0.02576848 = product of:
      0.05153696 = sum of:
        0.05153696 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05153696 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16650558 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047548167 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17.12.2013 11:02:22

0.0096631795 = product of:
  0.019326359 = sum of:
    0.019326359 = product of:
      0.038652718 = sum of:
        0.038652718 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038652718 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16650558 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047548167 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1521, 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=1521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2014 16:52:04

0.00818849 = product of:
  0.01637698 = sum of:
    0.01637698 = product of:
      0.06550792 = sum of:
        0.06550792 = weight(_text_:authors in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06550792 = score(doc=975,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21676326 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047548167 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study proposes a new framework for citation content analysis (CCA), for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content that can be used to better analyze the rich sociocultural context of research behavior. This framework could be considered the next generation of citation analysis. The authors briefly review the history and features of content analysis in traditional social sciences and its previous application in library and information science (LIS). Based on critical discussion of the theoretical necessity of a new method as well as the limits of citation analysis, the nature and purposes of CCA are discussed, and potential procedures to conduct CCA, including principles to identify the reference scope, a two-dimensional (citing and cited) and two-module (syntactic and semantic) codebook, are provided and described. Future work and implications are also suggested.

0.006823742 = product of:
  0.013647484 = sum of:
    0.013647484 = product of:
      0.054589935 = sum of:
        0.054589935 = weight(_text_:authors in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054589935 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21676326 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047548167 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this study, reference standards and reference multipliers are suggested as a means to compare the citation impact of earlier research publications in physics (from the period of "Little Science" in the early 20th century) with that of contemporary papers (from the period of "Big Science," beginning around 1960). For the development of time-specific reference standards, the authors determined (a) the mean citation rates of papers in selected physics journals as well as (b) the mean citation rates of all papers in physics published in 1900 (Little Science) and in 2000 (Big Science); this was accomplished by relying on the processes of field-specific standardization in bibliometry. For the sake of developing reference multipliers with which the citation impact of earlier papers can be adjusted to the citation impact of contemporary papers, they combined the reference standards calculated for 1900 and 2000 into their ratio. The use of reference multipliers is demonstrated by means of two examples involving the time adjusted h index values for Max Planck and Albert Einstein.

0.006823742 = product of:
  0.013647484 = sum of:
    0.013647484 = product of:
      0.054589935 = sum of:
        0.054589935 = weight(_text_:authors in 4628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054589935 = score(doc=4628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21676326 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047548167 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 4628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4628)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Literature practices represent the process leading up to the citation of a source, and consist of the selection, reading and citing of sources. The purpose of this paper is to explore possible factors that might influence researchers during this process and discover possible consequences of researchers' citation behaviours. Design/methodology/approach In this exploratory study, various factors which could influence literature practices were explored via a questionnaire amongst 112 researchers. Participants were first authors of articles published in 2016 in one of five different journals within the disciplines of experimental psychology, educational sciences and social psychology. Academic positions of the participants ranged from PhD student to full professor. Findings Frequencies and percentages showed that researchers seemed to be influenced in their literature practices by various factors, such as editors suggesting articles and motivation to cite. Additionally, a high percentage of researchers reported taking shortcuts when citing articles (e.g. using secondary citations and reading selectively). Logistic regression did not reveal a clear relationship between academic work experience and research practices. Practical implications Seeing that researchers seem to be influenced by a variety of factors in their literature practices, the scientific community might benefit from better citation practices and guidelines in order to provide more structure to the process of literature practices. Originality/value This paper provides first insights into researchers' literature practices. Possible reasons for problems with citation accuracy and replicating research findings are highlighted. Opportunities for further research on the topic of citation behaviours are presented.