Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024950609 = product of:
  0.049901217 = sum of:
    0.049901217 = product of:
      0.099802434 = sum of:
        0.099802434 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099802434 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.0149503 = product of:
  0.0299006 = sum of:
    0.0299006 = product of:
      0.1196024 = sum of:
        0.1196024 = weight(_text_:authors in 3106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1196024 = score(doc=3106,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 3106, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3106)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper we analyze a major part of the research output of the Networked Knowledge Organization Systems (NKOS) community in the period 2000 to 2015 from a network analytical perspective. We fo- cus on the paper output presented at the European NKOS workshops in the last 15 years. Our open dataset, the "NKOS bibliography", includes 14 workshop agendas (ECDL 2000-2010, TPDL 2011-2015) and 4 special issues on NKOS (2001, 2004, 2006 and 2015) which cover 171 papers with 218 distinct authors in total. A focus of the analysis is the visualization of co-authorship networks in this interdisciplinary eld. We used standard network analytic measures like degree and betweenness centrality to de- scribe the co-authorship distribution in our NKOS dataset. We can see in our dataset that 15% (with degree=0) of authors had no co-authorship with others and 53% of them had a maximum of 3 cooperations with other authors. 32% had at least 4 co-authors for all of their papers. The NKOS co-author network in the "NKOS bibliography" is a typical co- authorship network with one relatively large component, many smaller components and many isolated co-authorships or triples.

0.014625401 = product of:
  0.029250802 = sum of:
    0.029250802 = product of:
      0.058501605 = sum of:
        0.058501605 = weight(_text_:w in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058501605 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.29472697 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.014625401 = product of:
  0.029250802 = sum of:
    0.029250802 = product of:
      0.058501605 = sum of:
        0.058501605 = weight(_text_:w in 2189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058501605 = score(doc=2189,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.29472697 = fieldWeight in 2189, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://handbuch.io/w/Handbuch_CoScience/Messung_von_wissenschaftlichem_Impact

0.0129473405 = product of:
  0.025894681 = sum of:
    0.025894681 = product of:
      0.103578724 = sum of:
        0.103578724 = weight(_text_:authors in 3863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.103578724 = score(doc=3863,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 3863, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3863)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge Organization (KO) theoretical foundations are still being developed in a continuous process of epistemological, theoretical and methodological consolidation. The remarkable growth of scientific records has stimulated the analysis of this production and the creation of instruments to evaluate the behavior of science became indispensable. We propose the Domain Analysis of KO in North America through the citation analysis of North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO) proceedings (2007 - 2015). We present the citation, co-citation and bibliographic coupling analysis to visualize and recognize the researchers that influence the scholarly communication in this domain. The most prolific authors through NASKO conferences are Smiraglia, Tennis, Green, Dousa, Grant Campbell, Pimentel, Beak, La Barre, Kipp and Fox. Regarding their theoretical references, Hjørland, Olson, Smiraglia, and Ranganathan are the authors who most inspired the event's studies. The co-citation network shows the highest frequency is between Olson and Mai, followed by Hjørland and Mai and Beghtol and Mai, consolidating Mai and Hjørland as the central authors of the theoretical references in NASKO. The strongest theoretical proximity in author bibliographic coupling network occurs between Fox and Tennis, Dousa and Tennis, Tennis and Smiraglia, Dousa and Beak, and Pimentel and Tennis, highlighting Tennis as central author, that interconnects the others in relation to KO theoretical references in NASKO. The North American chapter has demonstrated a strong scientific production as well as a high level of concern with theoretical and epistemological questions, gathering researchers from different countries, universities and knowledge areas.

0.00897018 = product of:
  0.01794036 = sum of:
    0.01794036 = product of:
      0.07176144 = sum of:
        0.07176144 = weight(_text_:authors in 5057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07176144 = score(doc=5057,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 5057, 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=5057)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Increasingly researchers and academic research institutions are being asked to demonstrate the quality and impact of their research. Traditionally researchers have used text-based outputs to achieve these objectives. This paper discusses the introduction and subsequent review of a new service at a major Australian university, designed to encourage researchers to use media, particularly visual formats, in promoting their research. Findings from the review have highlighted the importance of researchers working in partnership with in-house media professionals to produce short, relatable, digestible, and engaging visual products. As a result of these findings, the authors have presented a four-phase media development model to assist researchers to tell their research story. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications for the institution as a whole and, more specifically, libraries.

0.0052326047 = product of:
  0.010465209 = sum of:
    0.010465209 = product of:
      0.041860837 = sum of:
        0.041860837 = weight(_text_:authors in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041860837 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.17628889 = fieldWeight in 3460, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3460)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Garfield wandte sich im Zusammenhang mit seinen Messgrößen gegen "Bibliographic Negligence" und "Citation Amnesia", Er schrieb 2002: "There will never be a perfect solution to the problem of acknowledging intellectual debts. But a beginning can be made if journal editors will demand a signed pledge from authors that they have searched Medline, Science Citation Index, or other appropriate print and electronic databases." Er warnte aber auch vor einen unsachgemäßen Umgang mit seinen Messgößen und vor übertriebenen Erwartungen an sie in Zusammenhang mit Karriereentscheidungen über Wissenschaftler und Überlebensentscheidungen für wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen. 1982 übernahm die Thomson Corporation ISI für 210 Millionen Dollar. In der heutigen Nachfolgeorganisation Clarivate Analytics sind mehr als 4000 Mitarbeitern in über hundert Ländern beschäftigt. Garfield gründete auch eine Zeitung für Wissenschaftler, speziell für Biowissenschaftler, "The Scientist", die weiterbesteht und als kostenfreier Pushdienst bezogen werden kann. In seinen Beiträgen zur Wissenschaftspolitik kritisierte er beispielsweise die Wissenschaftsberater von Präsident Reagen 1986 als "Advocats of the administration´s science policies, rather than as objective conduits for communication between the president and the science community." Seinen Beitrag, mit dem er darum warb, die Förderung von UNESCO-Forschungsprogrammen fortzusetzen, gab er den Titel: "Let´s stand up für Global Science". Das ist auch in Trump-Zeiten ein guter Titel, da die US-Regierung den Wahrheitsbegriff, auf der Wissenschaft basiert, als bedeutungslos verwirft und sich auf Nationalismus und Abschottung statt auf internationale Kommunikation, Kooperation und gemeinsame Ausschöpfung von Interessen fokussiert."