Search (48 results, page 1 of 3)

0.012832299 = product of:
  0.038496897 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 4992, 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=4992)
    0.029572664 = product of:
      0.059145328 = sum of:
        0.059145328 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059145328 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

14. 2.2012 12:53:22

Footnote

This article corrects: Thoughts on uncitedness: Nobel laureates and Fields medalists as case studies in: JASIST 62(2011) no,8, S.1637-1644.

0.01126907 = product of:
  0.03380721 = sum of:
    0.016063616 = weight(_text_:in in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016063616 = score(doc=5270,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.27051896 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
    0.017743597 = product of:
      0.035487194 = sum of:
        0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035487194 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The age distribution of a country's scientists is an important element in the study of its research capacity. In this article we investigate the age distribution of Japanese scientists in order to find out whether major events such as World War II had an appreciable effect on its features. Data have been obtained from population censuses taken in Japan from 1970 to 1995. A comparison with the situation in China and the United States has been made. We find that the group of scientific researchers outside academia is dominated by the young: those younger than age 35. The personnel group in higher education, on the other hand, is dominated by the baby boomers: those who were born after World War II. Contrary to the Chinese situation we could not find any influence of major nondemographic events. The only influence we found was the increase in enrollment of university students after World War II caused by the reform of the Japanese university system. Female participation in the scientific and university systems in Japan, though still low, is increasing.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:26:24

0.009900499 = product of:
  0.029701497 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 1515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=1515,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 1515, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1515)
    0.023454536 = weight(_text_:und in 1515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023454536 = score(doc=1515,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24241515 = fieldWeight in 1515, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1515)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Classification

AN 70400 Allgemeines / Buch- und Bibliothekswesen, Informationswissenschaft / Bibliothekswesen / Bibliotheksverwaltung / Bibliotheksanalyse, -statistik

RVK

AN 70400 Allgemeines / Buch- und Bibliothekswesen, Informationswissenschaft / Bibliothekswesen / Bibliotheksverwaltung / Bibliotheksanalyse, -statistik

0.00872957 = product of:
  0.026188709 = sum of:
    0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011973113 = score(doc=82,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
    0.014215595 = weight(_text_:und in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014215595 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

References to printed documents made on the web are called web-to-print references. These printed documents then in turn receive web-to-print citations. Webto-print citations and web-to-print references are the topic of this article, in which we study the online impact of printed sources. Web-to-print citations are discussed from a structural point of view and a small-scale experiment related to web-to-print citations for local history journals is performed. The main research question in setting up this experiment concerns the possibility of using web-to-print citations as a substitute for classical citation indexes by gauging the importance, visibility and impact of journals in the humanities. Results show the importance of web bibliographies in the field, but, at least for what concerns the journals and the period studied here, the amount of received web-to-print citations is too small to draw general conclusions.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.422-426

0.008438686 = product of:
  0.025316058 = sum of:
    0.0075724614 = weight(_text_:in in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075724614 = score(doc=7659,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
    0.017743597 = product of:
      0.035487194 = sum of:
        0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035487194 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

It is possible, using ISI's Journal Citation Report (JCR), to calculate average impact factors (AIF) for LCR's subject categories but it can be more useful to know the global Impact Factor (GIF) of a subject category and compare the 2 values. Reports results of a study to compare the relationships between AIFs and GIFs of subjects, based on the particular case of the average impact factor of a subfield versus the impact factor of this subfield as a whole, the difference being studied between an average of quotients, denoted as AQ, and a global average, obtained as a quotient of averages, and denoted as GQ. In the case of impact factors, AQ becomes the average impact factor of a field, and GQ becomes its global impact factor. Discusses a number of applications of this technique in the context of informetrics and scientometrics

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170

0.0060039847 = product of:
  0.018011954 = sum of:
    0.0061828885 = weight(_text_:in in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061828885 = score(doc=5171,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1041228 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.011829065 = product of:
      0.02365813 = sum of:
        0.02365813 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02365813 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.

Date

9. 7.2006 10:22:35

0.0025241538 = product of:
  0.015144923 = sum of:
    0.015144923 = weight(_text_:in in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015144923 = score(doc=1189,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article examines whether the absolute and relative numbers of reviews are increasing in the following three subfields of medical sciences: Tropical Medicine, Infectious Diseases, and Oncology. It further examines if reviews are cited more frequently than are "normal" articles. All research questions are answered affirmatively: The absolute as well as the relative numbers of reviews in these three subfields are indeed increasing. In addition, reviews in these fields are cited more frequently than are normal articles: about 70% more often than are "normal" articles in Infectious Diseases and Oncology and about 50% more often in Tropical Medicine. The article discusses possible reasons for this increase and concludes that medical journals should strive to achieve an optimal balance between review papers and original articles.

0.0023797948 = product of:
  0.014278769 = sum of:
    0.014278769 = weight(_text_:in in 5653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014278769 = score(doc=5653,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 5653, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5653)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0023797948 = product of:
  0.014278769 = sum of:
    0.014278769 = weight(_text_:in in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014278769 = score(doc=647,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Asserts that duality is an important topic in informetrics, especially in connection with the classical informetric laws. Yet this concept is less studied in information retrieval. It deals with the unification or symmetry between queries and documents, search formulation versus indexing, and relevant versus retrieved documents. Elaborates these ideas and highlights the connection with the hypergeometric distribution

0.0023797948 = product of:
  0.014278769 = sum of:
    0.014278769 = weight(_text_:in in 695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014278769 = score(doc=695,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 695, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=695)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

An h-type index is proposed which depends on the obtained citations of articles belonging to the h-core. This weighted h-index, denoted as hw, is presented in a continuous setting and in a discrete one. It is shown that in a continuous setting the new index enjoys many good properties. In the discrete setting some small deviations from the ideal may occur.

0.0023517415 = product of:
  0.014110449 = sum of:
    0.014110449 = weight(_text_:in in 3334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014110449 = score(doc=3334,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2376267 = fieldWeight in 3334, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3334)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Two forms of diffusion are studied: diffusion by publications, originating from the fact that a group publishes in different fields; and diffusion by citations, originating from the fact that the group's publications are cited in different fields. The first form of diffusion originates from an internal mechanism by which the group itself expands its own borders. The second form is partly driven by an external mechanism, in the sense that other fields use or become interested in the original group's expertise, and partly by the group's internal dynamism, in the sense that their articles, being published in more and more fields, have the potential to be applied in these other fields. In this contribution, we focus on basic counting measures as measures of diffusion. We introduce the notions of field diffusion breadth, defined as the number of for Essential Science Indicators (ESI) fields in which a set of articles is cited, and field diffusion intensity, defined as the number of citing articles in one particular ESI field. Combined effects of publications and citations can be measured by the Gini evenness measure. Our approach is illustrated by a study of mathematics at Tongji University (Shanghai, China).

0.0023281053 = product of:
  0.013968632 = sum of:
    0.013968632 = weight(_text_:in in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013968632 = score(doc=50,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Several characteristics of classical Lorenz curves make them unsuitable for the study of a group of topperformers. TOP-curves, defined as a kind of mirror image of TIP-curves used in poverty studies, are shown to possess the properties necessary for adequate empirical ranking of various data arrays, based on the properties of the highest performers (i.e., the core). TOP-curves and essential TOP-curves, also introduced in this article, simultaneously represent the incidence, intensity, and inequality among the top. It is shown that TOPdominance partial order, introduced in this article, is stronger than Lorenz dominance order. In this way, this article contributes to the study of cores, a central issue in applied informetrics.

0.0023281053 = product of:
  0.013968632 = sum of:
    0.013968632 = weight(_text_:in in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013968632 = score(doc=2717,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Temporal growth of the h-index in a diachronous cumulative time series is predicted to be linear by Hirsch (2005), whereas other models predict a concave increase. Actual data generally yield a linear growth or S-shaped growth. We study the h-index's growth in computer simulations of the publication-citation process. In most simulations the h-index grows linearly in time. Only occasionally does an S-shape occur, while in our simulations a concave increase is very rare. The latter is often signalled by the occurrence of plateaus - periods of h-index stagnation. Several parameters and their influence on the h-index's growth are determined and discussed.

0.0023281053 = product of:
  0.013968632 = sum of:
    0.013968632 = weight(_text_:in in 2860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013968632 = score(doc=2860,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 2860, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2860)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Generally, multicountry papers receive more citations than single-country ones. In this contribution, we examine if this rule also applies to American scientists publishing in highly visible interdisciplinary journals. Concretely, we compare the citations received by American scientists in Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). It is shown that, statistically, American scientists publishing in Nature and Science do not benefit from international collaboration. This statement also holds for communicated submissions, but not for direct and for contributed submissions, to PNAS.

0.0020823204 = product of:
  0.012493922 = sum of:
    0.012493922 = weight(_text_:in in 445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012493922 = score(doc=445,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 445, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=445)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Technology sectors differ in terms of technological complexity. When studying technology and innovation through patent analysis it is well known that similar amounts of technological knowledge can produce different numbers of patented innovation as output. A new multilayered approach to measure the technological value of patents based on ego patent citation networks (PCNs) is developed in this study. The results show that the structural indicators for the ego PCN developed in this contribution can characterize groups of patents and, hence, in an indirect way, the health of companies.

0.0020823204 = product of:
  0.012493922 = sum of:
    0.012493922 = weight(_text_:in in 2723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012493922 = score(doc=2723,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 2723, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2723)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The research question studied in this contribution is how to find an adequate representation to describe the diffusion of scientific ideas over time. We claim that citation data, at least of articles that act as concept symbols, can be considered to contain this information. As a case study we show how the founding article by Nobel Prize winner Kao illustrates the evolution of the field of fiber optics communication. We use a continuous description of discrete citation data in order to accentuate turning points and breakthroughs in the history of this field. Applying the principles explained in this contribution informetrics may reveal the trajectories along which science is developing.

0.0020823204 = product of:
  0.012493922 = sum of:
    0.012493922 = weight(_text_:in in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012493922 = score(doc=2765,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Beginning with a short review of Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals, we focus on PLOS ONE and more specifically the contributions of Chinese authors to this journal. It is shown that their contribution is growing exponentially. In 2013 almost one fifth of all publications in this journal had at least one Chinese author. The average number of citations per publication is approximately the same for articles with a Chinese author and for articles without any Chinese coauthor. Using the odds-ratio, we could not find arguments that Chinese authors in PLOS ONE excessively cite other Chinese contributions.

0.0020609628 = product of:
  0.012365777 = sum of:
    0.012365777 = weight(_text_:in in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012365777 = score(doc=6759,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Using a power-law model, the two best-known topics in citation analysis, namely the impact factor and the Hirsch index, are unified into one relation (not a function). The validity of our model is, at least in a qualitative way, confirmed by real data.

0.0019955188 = product of:
  0.011973113 = sum of:
    0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 2232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011973113 = score(doc=2232,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 2232, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2232)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Intellectual and technological talents and skills are the driving force for scientific and industrial development, especially in our times characterized by a knowledgebased economy. Major events in society and related political decisions, however, can have a long-term effect an a country's scientific weIl-being. Although the Cultural Revolution took place from 1966 to 1976, its aftermath can still be felt. This is shown by this study of the production and productivity of Chinese scientists as a function of their age. Based an the 1995-2000 data from the Chinese Science Citation database (CSCD), this article investigates the year-by-year age distribution of scientific and technological personnel publishing in China. It is shown that the "Talent Fault" originating during the Cultural Revolution still exists, and that a new gap resulting from recent brain drain might be developing. The purpose of this work is to provide necessary information about the current situation and especially the existing problems of the S&T workforce in China.

0.0019676082 = product of:
  0.011805649 = sum of:
    0.011805649 = weight(_text_:in in 4461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011805649 = score(doc=4461,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 4461, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4461)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Software programs are among the most important tools in data-driven research. The popularity of well-known packages and corresponding large numbers of citations received bear testimony of the contribution of scientific software to academic research. Yet software is not generally recognized as an academic outcome. In this study, a usage-based model is proposed with varied indicators including citations, mentions, and downloads to measure the importance of scientific software. We performed an investigation on a sample of international bioinformatics research articles, and on a sample from the Chinese community. Our analysis shows that scientists in the field of bioinformatics rely heavily on scientific software: the major differences between the international community and the Chinese example being how scientific packages are mentioned in publications and the time gap between the introduction of a package and its use. Biologists publishing in international journals tend to apply the latest tools earlier; Chinese scientists publishing in Chinese tend to follow later. Further, journals with higher impact factors tend to publish articles applying the latest tools earlier.