Search (60 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × year_i:[1990 TO 2000}
  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Stock, W.G.: Wissenschaftsevaluation mittels Datenbanken : methodisch einwandfrei? (1995) 0.02 
    0.016653707 = product of:
  0.04996112 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 2443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=2443,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 2443, 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=2443)
    0.04103689 = weight(_text_:und in 2443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04103689 = score(doc=2443,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.42413816 = fieldWeight in 2443, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2443)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Als Maß für die Produktivität und den Einfluß von Forschern, wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen und Fachbereichen dienen häufig anhand von Publikations- und Zitationsanalysen erstellte Ranglisten. Doch nach welchen Kriterien sind die in elektronischen Fachdatenbanken gespeicherten Informationen auszuwerten, um ein einigermaßen zutreffendes Abbild der Forschungsleistung zu erhalten?
  2. Göbel, S.: Aspekte der Mathematikliteratur : Untersuchungen in verschiedenen Datenbanken (1997) 0.02 
    0.016001623 = product of:
  0.048004866 = sum of:
    0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 2166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010096614 = score(doc=2166,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 2166, 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=2166)
    0.037908252 = weight(_text_:und in 2166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037908252 = score(doc=2166,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.39180204 = fieldWeight in 2166, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2166)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Literaturdatenbanken wurden eigentlich mit zwei Zielen aufgebaut: einerseits Fachliteratur zu archivieren und zu dokumentieren und andererseits die Literaturhinweise den Wissenschaftlern für Recherchen zur Verfügung zu stellen. Aus diesen gespeicherten Datenmengen kann man baer auch allgemeine Erkenntnisse über die Literatur eines Fachgebietes und das Verhalten der Forscher gewinnen. Vor allem seit den sechziger Jahren, seit dem Aufbau des Science Citation Index - in dem man auch nach zitierten Arbeiten suchen kann - gibt es eine Fülle von informationswisenschaftlichen und wissenssoziologischen Untersuchungen mit Datenbanken
  3. Glänzel, W.: Visual bibliometrics : eine visuelle Oberfläche zur Erweiterung der Nutzungsmöglichkeiten bibliographischer Datenbanken (1996) 0.01 
    0.01252012 = product of:
  0.03756036 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 6110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=6110,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 6110, 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=6110)
    0.028725822 = weight(_text_:und in 6110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028725822 = score(doc=6110,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2968967 = fieldWeight in 6110, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6110)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    In einer früheren Studie wurde bereits der 'informationelle Mehrwert' von bibliographischen Datenbanken durch bibliometrische Nutzung untersucht. Im folgenden soll nun eine visuelle Oberfläche vorgestellt werden, die mit Hilfe einer bibliometrischen 'Sekundärdatenbank' einerseits die Nutzungsmöglichkeiten der zugrundeliegenden bibliographischen Datenbanken vor allem in den Bereichen Wissenschaftsinformation, Forschungsevaluation und Wissenschaftspolitik erweitern soll, andererseits aber auch eine Rückkopplung zu den Aufgaben des traditionellen Retrievals erlaubt. Die visuelle Oberfläche 'Visual Bibliometrics' ist eine Erweiterung des CD-Edition des 'Science Citation Index' und des 'Social Science Citation Index'
    Source
    Herausforderungen an die Informationswirtschaft: Informationsverdichtung, Informationsbewertung und Datenvisualisierung. Proceedings des 5. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI'96), Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 17.-19. Oktober 1996. Hrsg.: J. Krause u.a
  4. Stock, W.G.: ¬Ein Netz wissenschaftlicher Informationen : gesponnen aus Fußnoten (1999) 0.01 
    0.011298822 = product of:
  0.033896465 = sum of:
    0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009274333 = score(doc=3890,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 3890, 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=3890)
    0.024622133 = weight(_text_:und in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024622133 = score(doc=3890,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2544829 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Das ISI in Philadelphia bündelt seine großen Zitationsdatenbanken und bietet sie (vorzugsweise als Intranet-, aber auch als Internetlösung) als 'Web of Science'an. Im derzeitigen entwicklungsstand geht 'Web of Science' bis in die 70er Jahre zurück und weist damit knapp 20 Mill. Quellenartikel mit darin enthaltenen rund 300 Mill. Zitationen in einer einzigen datenbank nach. Neben 'gewohnten' Suchstrategien etwa nach Sachthemen oder Namen werden zitationsanalytische Suchstrategien geboten: Recherchen nach zitierter Literatur, nach zitierenden Artikeln und nach (im Sinne gemeinsamer Fußnoten) 'verwandten' Artikeln. Die Ausgabefunktionen umfassen Document Delivery via ISI sowie Links zu Artikeln, die parallel zur Druckausgabe im WWW erscheinen. Durch die Multidisziplinarität der ISI-Datenbanken sind als Kundenkreis vor allem Einrichtungen angesprochen, die mehrere Wissenschaftsfächer berühren. Hochschulbibliotheken oder Bibliotheken großer Forschungseinrichtungen dürften am 'Web of Science' kaum vorbeikommen. Parallele Produkte bei Online-Archiven, auf CD-ROM oder als Druckausgabe verlieren an Bedeutung
  5. Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996) 0.01 
    0.01096284 = product of:
  0.03288852 = sum of:
    0.015144923 = weight(_text_:in in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015144923 = score(doc=4215,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
    0.017743597 = product of:
      0.035487194 = sum of:
        0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035487194 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles
  6. Schlaffer, H.: Selbstzitat (1997) 0.01 
    0.010872297 = product of:
  0.03261689 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 7464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=7464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 7464, 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=7464)
    0.02369266 = weight(_text_:und in 7464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02369266 = score(doc=7464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 7464, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7464)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    'Zwischenruf' zur Zitierpraxis im Wissenschaftsbereich: "Jeder kann seine Plazierung auf dieser Weltrangliste gelehrter Eitelkeit verbessern, indem er sich so oft und andere so wenig wie möglich zitiert. Die Verbreitung des Ruhms, den man braucht, nimmt man am besten selbst in die Hand, von Jugend an"
  7. Göbel, S.: What the Citation Index is good for (1997) 0.01 
    0.010872297 = product of:
  0.03261689 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 376, 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=376)
    0.02369266 = weight(_text_:und in 376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02369266 = score(doc=376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 376, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=376)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Footnote
    Ein Leserbrief zu Sinn und Nutzen des Science Citation Index als Erwiderung auf einen Beitrag von A. Octavio in Mathematical intelligencer 18(1996) no.4, S.9-11
  8. Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998) 0.01 
    0.010636792 = product of:
  0.031910375 = sum of:
    0.014166778 = weight(_text_:in in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014166778 = score(doc=3692,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
    0.017743597 = product of:
      0.035487194 = sum of:
        0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035487194 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a study to examine the patterns of self citation in 6 disciplines distributed among the physical and social sciences and humanities. Sample articles were examined to deermine the relative numbers and ages of self citations and citations to other in the bibliographies and to the exposure given to each type of citation in the text of the articles. significant differences were found in the number and age of citations between disciplines. Overall, 9% of all citations were self citations; 15% of physical sciences citations were self citations, as opposed to 6% in the social sciences and 3% in the humanities. Within disciplines, there was no significantly different amount of coverage between self citations and citations to others. Overall, it appears that a lack of substantive differences in self citation behaviour is consistent across disciplines
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:33:24
  9. Marx, W.: Wie mißt man Forschungsqualität? : der Science Citation Index - ein Maßstab für die Bewertung (1996) 0.01 
    0.008697838 = product of:
  0.02609351 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 5036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=5036,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 5036, 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=5036)
    0.018954126 = weight(_text_:und in 5036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018954126 = score(doc=5036,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 5036, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5036)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Ein überfordertes Gutachter-System, knapper fließende Forschungsgelder sowie die starke Faszination von Ranglisten bewirken zunehmend den Einsatz bibliometrischer Methoden zur Messung von Forschungsqualität. Grundlage der meisten Bewertungen ist der Science Citation Index, der nun auch in der Version als Online-Datenbank für umfangreiche Analysen genutzt werden kann. Erweiterungen der Retrievalsprache beim Host STN International ermöglichen statistische Analysen, die bisher nur dem SCI-Hersteller und wenigen Spezialisten vorbehalten waren. Voraussetzung für eine sinnvolle Anwendung sind vor allem die Wahl geeigneter Selektionskriterien sowie die sorgfältige Interpretation der Ergebnisse im Rahmen der Grenzen dieser Methoden
  10. Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992) 0.01 
    0.007886044 = product of:
  0.04731626 = sum of:
    0.04731626 = product of:
      0.09463252 = sum of:
        0.09463252 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09463252 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    7. 2.2005 14:10:22
  11. Gering, E.: ¬Die Analyse von Online-Datenbanken : ein Instrument für das Beobachten von Forschungsaktivitäten; dargestellt an einem Forschungsfeld der Festkörperphysik (1995) 0.01 
    0.0054715853 = product of:
  0.032829512 = sum of:
    0.032829512 = weight(_text_:und in 2660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032829512 = score(doc=2660,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 2660, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2660)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Sinnvolle forschungspolitische bzw. forschungsstrategische Entscheidungsprozesse bedürfen beim Wissenschafts- und Forschungsmanagement ausreichender Informationen hinsichtlich der Forschungsaktivitäten bestimmter Wissenschaftlergruppen, Institutionen bzw. Länder. Durch entsprechende Vergleichsuntersuchungen lassen sich u.a. auch thematische, länderweite bzw. zeitkritische Forschungsschwerpunkte herausarbeiten. Die folgende Arbeit skizziert die Möglichkeiten von Forschungsanalysen mittels Online-Datenbanken und verdeutlicht die spezifischen Möglichekeiten und Probleme am Beispiel von Arbeiten aus der Festkörperphysik
  12. Száva-Kováts, E.: Indirect-collective referencing (ICR) : life course, nature, and importance of a special kind of science referencing (1999) 0.00 
    0.0026772693 = product of:
  0.016063616 = sum of:
    0.016063616 = weight(_text_:in in 4298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016063616 = score(doc=4298,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.27051896 = fieldWeight in 4298, 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=4298)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Indirect collective referencing (ICR) is a special kind of indirect referencing, in an act making reference to all references cited in a directly cited paper. In this research the literature phenomenon of ICR is defined in the narrowest sense, taking into account only its indisputable minimum. To reveal the life course of this phenomenon, a longitudinal section was taken in the representative elite general physics journal, The Physical Review, processing more than 4.200 journal papers from 1897 to 1997 and their close to 84.00 formal references. This investigation showed that the ICR phenomenon has existed in the journal for a century now; that the frequency and intensity of the phenomenon have been constantly increasing in both absolute and relative terms since the last, mature period of the Little Science age; and that this growth has accelerated in the publication explosion of the Big Science age. It was shown that the Citation Indexes show only a fraction of the really cited references in the journal
  13. Pao, M.L.: Term and citation retrieval : a field study (1993) 0.00 
    0.0026606917 = product of:
  0.01596415 = sum of:
    0.01596415 = weight(_text_:in in 3741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01596415 = score(doc=3741,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.26884392 = fieldWeight in 3741, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3741)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Investigates the relative efficacy of searching by terms and by citations in searches collected in health science libraries. In pilot and field studies the odds that overlap items retrieved would be relevant or partially relevant were greatly improved. In the field setting citation searching was able to add average of 24% recall to traditional subject retrieval. Attempts to identify distinguishing characteristics in queries which might benefit most from additional citation searches proved inclusive. Online access of citation databases has been hampered by their high cost
  14. Leydesdorff, L.: Theories of citation? (1999) 0.00 
    0.0025503114 = product of:
  0.015301868 = sum of:
    0.015301868 = weight(_text_:in in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015301868 = score(doc=5130,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Citations support the communication of specialist knowledge by allowing authors and readers to make specific selections in several contexts at the same time. In the interactions between the social network of authors and the network of their reflexive communications, a sub textual code of communication with a distributed character has emerged. Citation analysis reflects on citation practices. Reference lists are aggregated in scientometric analysis using one of the available contexts to reduce the complexity: geometrical representations of dynamic operations are reflected in corresponding theories of citation. The specific contexts represented in the modern citation can be deconstructed from the perspective of the cultural evolution of scientific communication
    Footnote
    Lead paper in a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'
  15. McCain, K.W.: Mapping authors in intellectual space : a technical overview (1990) 0.00 
    0.0023797948 = product of:
  0.014278769 = sum of:
    0.014278769 = weight(_text_:in in 6903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014278769 = score(doc=6903,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 6903, 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=6903)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  16. Szava-Kovats, E.: Non-indexed indirect-collective citedness (NIICC) (1998) 0.00 
    0.0023797948 = product of:
  0.014278769 = sum of:
    0.014278769 = weight(_text_:in in 175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014278769 = score(doc=175,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 175, 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=175)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Examines non-indexed indirect collective citedness (NIICC), through a study of 621 articles from 1969 volumes of 2 physics journals, in order to establish the frequency of the phenomenon in the research material. Findings refute the representativity ofd the citation indexes in the field of citedness in the scientific journal literature during the science history period of early Big Science as NIICC was found to be widespread
  17. Piternick, A.B.: Name of an author! (1992) 0.00 
    0.0021034614 = product of:
  0.012620768 = sum of:
    0.012620768 = weight(_text_:in in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012620768 = score(doc=3293,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 3293, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3293)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Citing authors' names in indexes and references can cause great difficulties, as ghosts, subterfuges, and collaborative teamwork may often obscure the true begetters of published works. Presents a collection of facts and findings about authors that relate in one way or another to their names
  18. Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y.: Scholarly book reviewing in the social sciences and humanities : the flow of ides within and among disciplines (1998) 0.00 
    0.0021034614 = product of:
  0.012620768 = sum of:
    0.012620768 = weight(_text_:in in 4063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012620768 = score(doc=4063,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 4063, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4063)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: JASIS 50(1999) no.13, S.1259-1261 (J. Andersen)
  19. Nazim, A.S.: Subject relationship between articles determined by co-occurrences of keywords in citing and cited titles (1993) 0.00 
    0.0020823204 = product of:
  0.012493922 = sum of:
    0.012493922 = weight(_text_:in in 6358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012493922 = score(doc=6358,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 6358, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6358)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  20. Moed, H.F.: Differences in the construction of SCI based bibliometric indicators among various producers : a first overview (1996) 0.00 
    0.0020609628 = product of:
  0.012365777 = sum of:
    0.012365777 = weight(_text_:in in 5073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012365777 = score(doc=5073,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 5073, 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=5073)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Discusses basic technical methodological issues with respect to data collection and the construction of bibliometric indicators, particular at the macro or meso level. Focuses on the use of the Science Citation Index. Aims to highlight important decisions that have to be made in the process of data collection and the construction of bibliometric indicators. Illustrates differences in the methodologies applied by several important producers of bibliometric indicators, thus illustrating the complexity of the process of 'standardization'

Authors

Languages

  • e 49
  • d 9
  • chi 2
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 59
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes