Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × theme_ss:"Informationsmittel"
  1. Böll, S.K.: Informations- und bibliothekswissenschaftliche Zeitschriften in Literaturdatenbanken (2010) 0.01
    0.007078839 = product of:
      0.042473033 = sum of:
        0.042473033 = weight(_text_:der in 3234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042473033 = score(doc=3234,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.09292302 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04159925 = queryNorm
            0.4570776 = fieldWeight in 3234, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3234)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Fachzeitschriften spielen für Wissenschaftler und Praktiker bei der Verbreitung von Forschungsergebnissen und Erfahrungsberichten eine wichtige Rolle. Der vorliegende Artikel gibt eine kurze Einführung in das Feld der Informetrie, um auf dieser Grundlage eine Zeitschriftenliste auf dem Gebiet der lnformations- und Bibliothekswissenschaft (luB) einzuführen. Durch Kombination von zehn verschiedenen Zeitschriftenlisten aus Datenbanken, die relevante Literatur auf dem Gebiet der luB erfassen, wird eine umfassende Liste von 1205 relevanten Fachzeitschriften erstellt. Anhand ihrer Erscheinungshäufigkeit wird die Bedeutung einzelner Zeitschriften für das Gebiet der luB eingeordnet, wobei vier verschiedene Kategorien von Zeitschriften unterschieden werden: fünfzehn Kernzeitschriften, 88 zentrale Zeitschriften, 173 selektive Zeitschriften und 672 Randzeitschriften. Betrachtet werden darüber hinaus auch Publikationssprache und geografische Verteilung der Zeitschriften sowie die Überschneidung von verschiedenen Datenbanken untereinander.
  2. Meho, L.I.; Rogers, Y.: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers : a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science (2008) 0.00
    0.002348385 = product of:
      0.01409031 = sum of:
        0.01409031 = product of:
          0.02818062 = sum of:
            0.02818062 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02818062 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.14567348 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04159925 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.
  3. Teplitskiy, M.; Lu, G.; Duede, E.: Amplifying the impact of open access : Wikipedia and the diffusion of science (2017) 0.00
    0.0022933283 = product of:
      0.013759969 = sum of:
        0.013759969 = weight(_text_:der in 3782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013759969 = score(doc=3782,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09292302 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04159925 = queryNorm
            0.14807922 = fieldWeight in 3782, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3782)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Content
    Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23687/full. Der Beitrag ist frei verfügbar. Beitrag mit hohem AmScore in vielen Segmenten.