Search (33 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0018033426 = product of:
  0.010820055 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=6031,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 6031, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6031)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Multiple authorship is a topic of growing concern in a number of scientific domains. When, as is increasingly common, scholarly articles and clinical reports have scores or even hundreds of authors-what Cronin (in press) has termed "hyperauthorship" -the precise nature of each individual's contribution is often masked. A notation that describes collaborators' contributions and allows those contributions to be tracked in, and across, texts (and over time) offers a solution. Such a notation should be useful, easy to use, and acceptable to communities of scientists. Drawing on earlier work, we present a proposal for an XML-like "contribution" mark-up, and discuss the potential benefits and possible drawbacks

0.0018033426 = product of:
  0.010820055 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 4709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=4709,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 4709, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4709)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Describes a study which examined the scholarly literature of sociology. Tens of thousands of references from monographs and leading academic journals were analyzed. The relative rankings of authors who were highly cited in the monographic literature did not change in the journal literature of the same period. However, there was only a small overlap between the most highly cited authors based on the journal sample and those based on the monograph sample. The lack of correlation suggests that there may be 2 distinct populations of highly cited authors

0.0018033426 = product of:
  0.010820055 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 1377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=1377,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 1377, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1377)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The authors describe a large-scale, longitudinal citation analysis of intellectual trading between information studies and cognate disciplines. The results of their investigation reveal the extent to which information studies draws on and, in turn, contributes to the ideational substrates of other academic domains. Their data show that the field has become a more successful exporter of ideas as well as less introverted than was previously the case. In the last decade, information studies has begun to contribute significantly to the literatures of such disciplines as computer science and engineering on the one hand and business and management on the other, while also drawing more heavily on those same literatures.

0.001682769 = product of:
  0.010096614 = sum of:
    0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 4488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010096614 = score(doc=4488,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 4488, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4488)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Data were gathered on acknowledgements in five leading information science journals for the years 1991-1999. The results were compared with data from two earlier studies of the same journals. Analysis of the aggregate data (1971-1999) confirms the general impression that acknowledgement has become an institutionalised element of the scholarly communication process, reflecting the growing cognitive and structural complexity of contemporary research.

0.0015457221 = product of:
  0.009274333 = sum of:
    0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009274333 = score(doc=539,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Little research has been reported on how the Internet is being used to source corporate competitive intelligence. An exploratory study was conducted to explore current practice and future potential. A request for participants was posted to business-oriented listservs and Usenet newsgroups. Respondents were sent an open-ended survey which addressed three topics: a) the Internet as a source of competitive edge; b) ways in which the Internet could make their firm mor competitive, and c) security and other usage-related issues from the corporate perspective. Findings suggest that the Internet is being used as a tool for monitoring the external environment, locating distributed experts, engaging in informal know-how trading, and conducting market research. Respondents foresee greater use of the Internet in the context of the competitive intelligence function, and generally have few reservations about using the Internet

0.0014873719 = product of:
  0.008924231 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 4542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=4542,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 4542, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4542)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The reciprocal relationship between bibliographic references and citations in the context of the scholarly communication system is examined. Semiotic analysis of referencing behaviours and citation counting reveals the complexity of prevailing sign systems and associated symbolic practices.

0.0014724231 = product of:
  0.008834538 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=5678,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Examines the complex relationship between information investment and socio-economic development with special reference to the relevance and appropriateness of the information services offered to developinf countries. Emphasises the importance of cultural relativism in the varying potential of information to influence social development. Proposes a civic networking model which contributes to the empowerment of the people by ensuring that: citizens are provided with free or subsidized access to community (and other) information resources; the local community has a high level of equity/ownership in the design and maintenance of the information system/service; and content is locally negotiated and validated

0.0014724231 = product of:
  0.008834538 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 4991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=4991,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 4991, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4991)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

We conducted a fine-grained prosopography of six distinguished information scientists to explore commonalities and differences in their approaches to scholarly production at different stages of their careers. Specifically, we gathered data on authors' genre preferences, rates and modes of scholarly production, and coauthorship patterns. We also explored the role played by gender and place in determining mentoring and collaboration practices across time. Our biobibliometric profiles of the sextet reveal the different shapes a scholar's career can take. We consider the implications of our findings for new entrants into the academic marketplace.

0.0011898974 = product of:
  0.0071393843 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 7773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=7773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 7773, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7773)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The degree of similarity netween pairs of cited and citing documents is frequently small. One factor may be the ways in which authors draw upon and cite the work of others. The idea of tiered, or multilayered, citation is proposed as a means of testing this hypothesis. A tentative citation typology is outlined

0.0011898974 = product of:
  0.0071393843 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 2327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=2327,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2327, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2327)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Where, how, and why are scholars invoked on the WWW? An inductively derived typology was used to captue genres of invocation. Comparative data were gathered using five commercial search engines. It is argued that the Web fosters mow modalities of scholarly communication. Different categories of invocation are identified and analyzed in terms of their potential to inform sociometric and bibliometric analyses of academic interaction

0.0011898974 = product of:
  0.0071393843 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 5127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=5127,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 5127, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5127)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Reviews a variety of perspectives on citation. Argues that citations have multiple articulations in that they inform our understanding of the sociocultural, cognitive, and textual aspects of scientific communication. Proposes 2 metatheoretical frameworks as a means of negotiating the interpretative differences which characterize the various discourse communities concerned with citation theory and practice

0.0011898974 = product of:
  0.0071393843 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=196,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=196)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The authors apply a new bibliometric measure, the h-index (Hirsch, 2005), to the literature of information science. Faculty rankings based on raw citation counts are compared with those based on h-counts. There is a strong positive correlation between the two sets of rankings. It is shown how the h-index can be used to express the broad impact of a scholar's research output over time in more nuanced fashion than straight citation counts.

0.0011898974 = product of:
  0.0071393843 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=2361,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2361, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2361)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The authors use a novel method - the Author Affiliation Index (AAI) - to determine whether faculty at the top-10 North American library and information science (LIS) programs have a disproportionate presence in the premier journals of the field. The study finds that LIS may be both too small and too interdisciplinary a domain for the AAI to provide reliable results.