Search (54 results, page 1 of 3)

0.03492582 = product of:
  0.122240365 = sum of:
    0.1047525 = weight(_text_:interactions in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1047525 = score(doc=5130,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22965278 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8977947 = idf(docFreq=329, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.4561343 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8977947 = idf(docFreq=329, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=5130,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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

0.033071604 = product of:
  0.1157506 = sum of:
    0.08978786 = weight(_text_:interactions in 2929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08978786 = score(doc=2929,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22965278 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8977947 = idf(docFreq=329, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.39097226 = fieldWeight in 2929, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8977947 = idf(docFreq=329, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2929)
    0.025962738 = weight(_text_:with in 2929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025962738 = score(doc=2929,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2766895 = fieldWeight in 2929, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2929)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The launching of Scopus and Google Scholar, and methodological developments in social-network analysis have made many more indicators for evaluating journals available than the traditional impact factor, cited half-life, and immediacy index of the ISI. In this study, these new indicators are compared with one another and with the older ones. Do the various indicators measure new dimensions of the citation networks, or are they highly correlated among themselves? Are they robust and relatively stable over time? Two main dimensions are distinguished - size and impact - which together shape influence. The h-index combines the two dimensions and can also be considered as an indicator of reach (like Indegree). PageRank is mainly an indicator of size, but has important interactions with centrality measures. The Scimago Journal Ranking (SJR) indicator provides an alternative to the journal impact factor, but the computation is less easy.

0.0128268385 = product of:
  0.08978786 = sum of:
    0.08978786 = weight(_text_:interactions in 4004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08978786 = score(doc=4004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22965278 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8977947 = idf(docFreq=329, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.39097226 = fieldWeight in 4004, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8977947 = idf(docFreq=329, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4004)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The communication of meaning as distinct from (Shannon-type) information is central to Luhmann's social systems theory and Giddens' structuration theory of action. These theories share an emphasis on reflexivity, but focus on meaning along a divide between interhuman communication and intentful action as two different systems of reference. Recombining these two theories into a theory about the structuration of expectations, interactions, organization, and self-organization of intentional communications can be simulated based on algorithms from the computation of anticipatory systems. The self-organizing and organizing layers remain rooted in the double contingency of the human encounter, which provides the variation. Organization and self-organization of communication are reflexive upon and therefore reconstructive of each other. Using mutual information in three dimensions, the imprint of meaning processing in the modeling system on the historical organization of uncertainty in the modeled system can be measured. This is shown empirically in the case of intellectual organization as "structurating" structure in the textual domain of scientific articles.

0.0128268385 = product of:
  0.08978786 = sum of:
    0.08978786 = weight(_text_:interactions in 494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08978786 = score(doc=494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22965278 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8977947 = idf(docFreq=329, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.39097226 = fieldWeight in 494, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8977947 = idf(docFreq=329, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=494)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Multiple perspectives on the nonlinear processes of medical innovations can be distinguished and combined using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) of the MEDLINE database. Focusing on three main branches-"diseases," "drugs and chemicals," and "techniques and equipment"-we use base maps and overlay techniques to investigate the translations and interactions and thus to gain a bibliometric perspective on the dynamics of medical innovations. To this end, we first analyze the MEDLINE database, the MeSH index tree, and the various options for a static mapping from different perspectives and at different levels of aggregation. Following a specific innovation (RNA interference) over time, the notion of a trajectory which leaves a signature in the database is elaborated. Can the detailed index terms describing the dynamics of research be used to predict the diffusion dynamics of research results? Possibilities are specified for further integration between the MEDLINE database on one hand, and the Science Citation Index and Scopus (containing citation information) on the other.

0.0128268385 = product of:
  0.08978786 = sum of:
    0.08978786 = weight(_text_:interactions in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08978786 = score(doc=1110,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22965278 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8977947 = idf(docFreq=329, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.39097226 = fieldWeight in 1110, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8977947 = idf(docFreq=329, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1110)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Using data from the Web of Science (WoS), we analyze the mutual information among university, industry, and government addresses (U-I-G) at the country level for a number of countries. The dynamic evolution of the Triple Helix can thus be compared among developed and developing nations in terms of cross-sectional coauthorship relations. The results show that the Triple Helix interactions among the three subsystems U-I-G become less intensive over time, but unequally for different countries. We suggest that globalization erodes local Triple Helix relations and thus can be expected to have increased differentiation in national systems since the mid-1990s. This effect of globalization is more pronounced in developed countries than in developing ones. In the dynamic analysis, we focus on a more detailed comparison between China and the United States. Specifically, the Chinese Academy of the (Social) Sciences is changing increasingly from a public research institute to an academic one, and this has a measurable effect on China's position in the globalization.

0.011939922 = product of:
  0.041789725 = sum of:
    0.025962738 = weight(_text_:with in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025962738 = score(doc=1621,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2766895 = fieldWeight in 1621, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1621)
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=1621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1621, 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=1621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The relationship between the "knowledge base" and the "globalization" of communication systems is discussed from the perspective of communication theory. I argue that inter-human communication takes place at two levels. At the first level information is exchanged and provided with meaning and at the second level meaning can reflexively be communicated. Human language can be considered as the evolutionary achievement which enables us to use these two channels of communication simultaneously. Providing meaning with hindsight is a recursive operation: a meaning that makes a difference can be considered as knowledge. If the production of knowledge is socially organized, the perspective of hindsight can further be codified. This adds globalization to the historically stabilized patterns of communications. Globalization can be expected to transform the communications in an evolutionary mode. However, the self-organization of a knowledge-based society remains an expectation with the status of a hypothesis.

Date

22. 5.2003 19:48:04

0.010578708 = product of:
  0.037025474 = sum of:
    0.021198487 = weight(_text_:with in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021198487 = score(doc=4460,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.22591603 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, 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=4460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Aggregated journal-journal citations can be used for mapping the intellectual organization of the sciences in terms of specialties because the latter can be considered as interreading communities. Can the journal-journal citations also be used as early indicators of change by comparing the files for two subsequent years? Probabilistic entropy measures enable us to analyze changes in large datasets at different levels of aggregation and in considerable detail. Compares Journal Citation Reports of the Social Science Citation Index for 1999 with similar data for 1998 and analyzes the differences using these measures. Compares the various indicators with similar developments in the Science Citation Index. Specialty formation seems a more important mechanism in the development of the social sciences than in the natural and life sciences, but the developments in the social sciences are volatile. The use of aggregate statistics based on the Science Citation Index is ill-advised in the case of the social sciences because of structural differences in the underlying dynamics.

Date

6.11.2005 19:02:22

0.010578708 = product of:
  0.037025474 = sum of:
    0.021198487 = weight(_text_:with in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021198487 = score(doc=2761,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.22591603 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2761, 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=2761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

International co-authorship relations and university-industry-government (Triple Helix) relations have hitherto been studied separately. Using Japanese publication data for the 1981-2004 period, we were able to study both kinds of relations in a single design. In the Japanese file, 1,277,030 articles with at least one Japanese address were attributed to the three sectors, and we know additionally whether these papers were coauthored internationally. Using the mutual information in three and four dimensions, respectively, we show that the Japanese Triple-Helix system has been continuously eroded at the national level. However, since the mid-1990s, international coauthorship relations have contributed to a reduction of the uncertainty at the national level. In other words, the national publication system of Japan has developed a capacity to retain surplus value generated internationally. In a final section, we compare these results with an analysis based on similar data for Canada. A relative uncoupling of national university-industry-government relations because of international collaborations is indicated in both countries.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:07:20

0.009949936 = product of:
  0.034824774 = sum of:
    0.021635616 = weight(_text_:with in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021635616 = score(doc=4463,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2305746 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
    0.013189158 = product of:
      0.026378317 = sum of:
        0.026378317 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026378317 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4463, 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=4463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This article considers the relationships among meaning generation, selection, and the dynamics of discourse from a variety of perspectives ranging from information theory and biology to sociology. Following Husserl's idea of a horizon of meanings in intersubjective communication, we propose a way in which, using Shannon's equations, the generation and selection of meanings from a horizon of possibilities can be considered probabilistically. The information-theoretical dynamics we articulate considers a process of meaning generation within cultural evolution: information is imbued with meaning, and through this process, the number of options for the selection of meaning in discourse proliferates. The redundancy of possible meanings contributes to a codification of expectations within the discourse. Unlike hardwired DNA, the codes of nonbiological systems can coevolve with the variations. Spanning horizons of meaning, the codes structure the communications as selection environments that shape discourses. Discursive knowledge can be considered as meta-coded communication that enables us to translate among differently coded communications. The dynamics of discursive knowledge production can thus infuse the historical dynamics with a cultural evolution by adding options, that is, by increasing redundancy. A calculus of redundancy is presented as an indicator whereby these dynamics of discourse and meaning may be explored empirically.

Date

29. 9.2018 11:22:09

0.008804738 = product of:
  0.030816581 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.

Date

8. 1.2019 18:22:45

0.0039902087 = product of:
  0.02793146 = sum of:
    0.02793146 = weight(_text_:with in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02793146 = score(doc=4919,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2976705 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In bibliometrics, the association of "impact" with central-tendency statistics is mistaken. Impacts add up, and citation curves therefore should be integrated instead of averaged. For example, the journals MIS Quarterly and Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology differ by a factor of 2 in terms of their respective impact factors (IF), but the journal with the lower IF has the higher impact. Using percentile ranks (e.g., top-1%, top-10%, etc.), an Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) can be based on integration of the citation curves, but after normalization of the citation curves to the same scale. The results across document sets can be compared as percentages of the total impact of a reference set. Total number of citations, however, should not be used instead because the shape of the citation curves is then not appreciated. I3 can be applied to any document set and any citation window. The results of the integration (summation) are fully decomposable in terms of journals or institutional units such as nations, universities, and so on because percentile ranks are determined at the paper level. In this study, we first compare I3 with IFs for the journals in two Institute for Scientific Information subject categories ("Information Science & Library Science" and "Multidisciplinary Sciences"). The library and information science set is additionally decomposed in terms of nations. Policy implications of this possible paradigm shift in citation impact analysis are specified.

0.0037089628 = product of:
  0.025962738 = sum of:
    0.025962738 = weight(_text_:with in 184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025962738 = score(doc=184,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2766895 = fieldWeight in 184, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=184)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 53(2002) no.1, S.61-62 (E.G. Ackermann): "This brief summary cannot do justice to the intellectual depth, philosophical richness of the theoretical models, and their implications presented by Leydesdorff in his book. Next to this, the caveats presented earlier in this review are relatively minor. For all that, this book is not an "easy" read, nor is it for the theoretically or philosophically faint of heart. The content is certainly accessible to those with the interest and the stamina to see it through to the end, and would repay those who reread it with further insight and understanding. This book is recommended especially for the reader who is looking for a well-developed, general sociological theory of communication with a strong philosophical basis upon which to build a postmodern, deconstructionist research methodology"

0.0037089628 = product of:
  0.025962738 = sum of:
    0.025962738 = weight(_text_:with in 2224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025962738 = score(doc=2224,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2766895 = fieldWeight in 2224, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2224)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

We present a novel routine, namely medlineR, based on the R language, that allows the user to match data from Medline/PubMed with records indexed in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) database. The matching allows exploiting the rich and controlled vocabulary of medical subject headings (MeSH) of Medline/PubMed with additional fields of WoS. The integration provides data (e.g., citation data, list of cited reference, list of the addresses of authors' host organizations, WoS subject categories) to perform a variety of scientometric analyses. This brief communication describes medlineR, the method on which it relies, and the steps the user should follow to perform the matching across the two databases. To demonstrate the differences from Leydesdorff and Opthof (Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1076-1080), we conclude this artcle by testing the routine on the MeSH category "Burgada syndrome."

0.0037089628 = product of:
  0.025962738 = sum of:
    0.025962738 = weight(_text_:with in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025962738 = score(doc=2779,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2766895 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web of Science subject categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "information science & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of "science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" be replaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New research questions can then be envisaged.

0.0035330812 = product of:
  0.024731567 = sum of:
    0.024731567 = weight(_text_:with in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024731567 = score(doc=1238,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2635687 = fieldWeight in 1238, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1238)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

We introduce the quantitative method named "Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy" (RPYS). With this method one can determine the historical roots of research fields and quantify their impact on current research. RPYS is based on the analysis of the frequency with which references are cited in the publications of a specific research field in terms of the publication years of these cited references. The origins show up in the form of more or less pronounced peaks mostly caused by individual publications that are cited particularly frequently. In this study, we use research on graphene and on solar cells to illustrate how RPYS functions, and what results it can deliver.

0.0030908023 = product of:
  0.021635616 = sum of:
    0.021635616 = weight(_text_:with in 2373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021635616 = score(doc=2373,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2305746 = fieldWeight in 2373, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2373)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

With the program HistCite(TM) it is possible to generate and visualize the most relevant papers in a set of documents retrieved from the Science Citation Index. Historical reconstructions of scientific developments can be represented chronologically as developments in networks of citation relations extracted from scientific literature. This study aims to go beyond the historical reconstruction of scientific knowledge, enriching the output of HistCiteTM with algorithms from social-network analysis and information theory. Using main-path analysis, it is possible to highlight the structural backbone in the development of a scientific field. The expected information value of the message can be used to indicate whether change in the distribution (of citations) has occurred to such an extent that a path-dependency is generated. This provides us with a measure of evolutionary change between subsequent documents. The forgetting and rewriting of historically prior events at the research front can thus be indicated. These three methods - HistCite, main path and path dependent transitions - are applied to a set of documents related to fullerenes and the fullerene-like structures known as nanotubes.

0.0030908023 = product of:
  0.021635616 = sum of:
    0.021635616 = weight(_text_:with in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021635616 = score(doc=3335,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2305746 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Using the Scopus dataset (1996-2007) a grand matrix of aggregated journal-journal citations was constructed. This matrix can be compared in terms of the network structures with the matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI). Because the Scopus database contains a larger number of journals and covers the humanities, one would expect richer maps. However, the matrix is in this case sparser than in the case of the ISI data. This is because of (a) the larger number of journals covered by Scopus and (b) the historical record of citations older than 10 years contained in the ISI database. When the data is highly structured, as in the case of large journals, the maps are comparable, although one may have to vary a threshold (because of the differences in densities). In the case of interdisciplinary journals and journals in the social sciences and humanities, the new database does not add a lot to what is possible with the ISI databases.

0.0030908023 = product of:
  0.021635616 = sum of:
    0.021635616 = weight(_text_:with in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021635616 = score(doc=1237,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2305746 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The h-index provides us with 9 natural classes which can be written as a matrix of 3 vectors. The 3 vectors are: X = (X1, X2, X3) and indicates publication distribution in the h-core, the h-tail, and the uncited ones, respectively; Y = (Y1, Y2, Y3) denotes the citation distribution of the h-core, the h-tail and the so-called "excess" citations (above the h-threshold), respectively; and Z = (Z1, Z2, Z3) = (Y1-X1, Y2-X2, Y3-X3). The matrix V = (X,Y,Z)T constructs a measure of academic performance, in which the 9 numbers can all be provided with meanings in different dimensions. The "academic trace" tr(V) of this matrix follows naturally, and contributes a unique indicator for total academic achievements by summarizing and weighting the accumulation of publications and citations. This measure can also be used to combine the advantages of the h-index and the integrated impact indicator (I3) into a single number with a meaningful interpretation of the values. We illustrate the use of tr(V) for the cases of 2 journal sets, 2 universities, and ourselves as 2 individual authors.

0.0030908023 = product of:
  0.021635616 = sum of:
    0.021635616 = weight(_text_:with in 1814) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021635616 = score(doc=1814,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2305746 = fieldWeight in 1814, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1814)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Using Scopus data, we construct a global map of science based on aggregated journal-journal citations from 1996-2012 (N of journals?=?20,554). This base map enables users to overlay downloads from Scopus interactively. Using a single year (e.g., 2012), results can be compared with mappings based on the Journal Citation Reports at the Web of Science (N?=?10,936). The Scopus maps are more detailed at both the local and global levels because of their greater coverage, including, for example, the arts and humanities. The base maps can be interactively overlaid with journal distributions in sets downloaded from Scopus, for example, for the purpose of portfolio analysis. Rao-Stirling diversity can be used as a measure of interdisciplinarity in the sets under study. Maps at the global and the local level, however, can be very different because of the different levels of aggregation involved. Two journals, for example, can both belong to the humanities in the global map, but participate in different specialty structures locally. The base map and interactive tools are available online (with instructions) at http://www.leydesdorff.net/scopus_ovl.

0.0030283553 = product of:
  0.021198487 = sum of:
    0.021198487 = weight(_text_:with in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021198487 = score(doc=3436,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.22591603 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The possibilities of using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) for journal mapping have not been sufficiently recognized because of the absence of a Journal Citations Report (JCR) for this database. A quasi-JCR for the A&HCI ([2008]) was constructed from the data contained in the Web of Science and is used for the evaluation of two journals as examples: Leonardo and Art Journal. The maps on the basis of the aggregated journal-journal citations within this domain can be compared with maps including references to journals in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Art journals are cited by (social) science journals more than by other art journals, but these journals draw upon one another in terms of their own references. This cultural impact in terms of being cited is not found when documents with a topic such as digital humanities are analyzed. This community of practice functions more as an intellectual organizer than a journal.