Search (66 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Rajan, T.N.; Guha, B.; Sayanarayana, R.: Associate relationship of concepts as seen through citations and citation index (1982) 0.06 
    0.062208362 = product of:
  0.124416724 = sum of:
    0.0797216 = weight(_text_:subject in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0797216 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
    0.04469512 = product of:
      0.08939024 = sum of:
        0.08939024 = weight(_text_:classification in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08939024 = score(doc=58,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.5971325 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    Universal classification II: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg
  2. Malanga, G.: Classifying and screening journal literature with citation data (1982) 0.05 
    0.051840298 = product of:
  0.103680596 = sum of:
    0.06643467 = weight(_text_:subject in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06643467 = score(doc=553,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
    0.037245933 = product of:
      0.074491866 = sum of:
        0.074491866 = weight(_text_:classification in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074491866 = score(doc=553,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.49761042 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg
  3. Pichappan, P.: Levels of citation relation between papers (1996) 0.05 
    0.046385758 = product of:
  0.092771515 = sum of:
    0.06643467 = weight(_text_:subject in 5725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06643467 = score(doc=5725,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 5725, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5725)
    0.02633685 = product of:
      0.0526737 = sum of:
        0.0526737 = weight(_text_:classification in 5725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0526737 = score(doc=5725,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 5725, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5725)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Proposes a typology for measuring the levels of citation relations netween papers. Introduces a new family of citation based classification schemes and outlines the typology that can be seen as being analogous to Ranganathan's APUPA pattern in subject mapping
  4. Lai, K.-K.; Wu, S.-J.: Using the patent co-citation approach to establish a new patent classification system (2005) 0.03 
    0.031331412 = product of:
  0.062662825 = sum of:
    0.033217333 = weight(_text_:subject in 1013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033217333 = score(doc=1013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 1013, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1013)
    0.029445495 = product of:
      0.05889099 = sum of:
        0.05889099 = weight(_text_:classification in 1013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05889099 = score(doc=1013,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.39339557 = fieldWeight in 1013, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The paper proposes a new approach to create a patent classification system to replace the IPC or UPC system for conducting patent analysis and management. The new approach is based on co-citation analysis of bibliometrics. The traditional approach for management of patents, which is based on either the IPC or UPC, is too general to meet the needs of specific industries. In addition, some patents are placed in incorrect categories, making it difficult for enterprises to carry out R&D planning, technology positioning, patent strategy-making and technology forecasting. Therefore, it is essential to develop a patent classification system that is adaptive to the characteristics of a specific industry. The analysis of this approach is divided into three phases. Phase I selects appropriate databases to conduct patent searches according to the subject and objective of this study and then select basic patents. Phase II uses the co-cited frequency of the basic patent pairs to assess their similarity. Phase III uses factor analysis to establish a classification system and assess the efficiency of the proposed approach. The main contribution of this approach is to develop a patent classification system based on patent similarities to assist patent manager in understanding the basic patents for a specific industry, the relationships among categories of technologies and the evolution of a technology category.
  5. Leydesdorff, L.: Clusters and maps of science journals based on bi-connected graphs in Journal Citation Reports (2004) 0.03 
    0.031104181 = product of:
  0.062208362 = sum of:
    0.0398608 = weight(_text_:subject in 4427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0398608 = score(doc=4427,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 4427, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4427)
    0.02234756 = product of:
      0.04469512 = sum of:
        0.04469512 = weight(_text_:classification in 4427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04469512 = score(doc=4427,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 4427, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4427)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix derived from Journal Citation Reports 2001 can be decomposed into a unique subject classification using the graph-analytical algorithm of bi-connected components. This technique was recently incorporated in software tools for social network analysis. The matrix can be assessed in terms of its decomposability using articulation points which indicate overlap between the components. The articulation points of this set did not exhibit a next-order network of "general science" journals. However, the clusters differ in size and in terms of the internal density of their relations. A full classification of the journals is provided in the Appendix. The clusters can also be extracted and mapped for the visualization.
  6. Marion, L.S.; McCain, K.W.: Contrasting views of software engineering journals : author cocitation choices and indexer vocabulary assignments (2001) 0.02 
    0.023488201 = product of:
  0.093952805 = sum of:
    0.093952805 = weight(_text_:subject in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093952805 = score(doc=5767,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.55884314 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    We explore the intellectual subject structure and research themes in software engineering through the identification and analysis of a core journal literature. We examine this literature via two expert perspectives: that of the author, who identified significant work by citing it (journal cocitation analysis), and that of the professional indexer, who tags published work with subject terms to facilitate retrieval from a bibliographic database (subject profile analysis). The data sources are SCISEARCH (the on-line version of Science Citation Index), and INSPEC (a database covering software engineering, computer science, and information systems). We use data visualization tools (cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and PFNets) to show the "intellectual maps" of software engineering. Cocitation and subject profile analyses demonstrate that software engineering is a distinct interdisciplinary field, valuing practical and applied aspects, and spanning a subject continuum from "programming-in-the-smalI" to "programming-in-the-large." This continuum mirrors the software development life cycle by taking the operating system or major application from initial programming through project management, implementation, and maintenance. Object orientation is an integral but distinct subject area in software engineering. Key differences are the importance of management and programming: (1) cocitation analysis emphasizes project management and systems development; (2) programming techniques/languages are more influential in subject profiles; (3) cocitation profiles place object-oriented journals separately and centrally while the subject profile analysis locates these journals with the programming/languages group
  7. Nazim, A.S.: Subject relationship between articles determined by co-occurrences of keywords in citing and cited titles (1993) 0.02 
    0.023252133 = product of:
  0.09300853 = sum of:
    0.09300853 = weight(_text_:subject in 6358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09300853 = score(doc=6358,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 6358, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6358)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  8. Gorraiz, J.; Purnell, P.J.; Glänzel, W.: Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index (2013) 0.02 
    0.023192879 = product of:
  0.046385758 = sum of:
    0.033217333 = weight(_text_:subject in 966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033217333 = score(doc=966,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 966, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=966)
    0.013168425 = product of:
      0.02633685 = sum of:
        0.02633685 = weight(_text_:classification in 966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02633685 = score(doc=966,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 966, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=966)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article offers important background information about a new product, the Book Citation Index (BKCI), launched in 2011 by Thomson Reuters. Information is illustrated by some new facts concerning The BKCI's use in bibliometrics, coverage analysis, and a series of idiosyncrasies worthy of further discussion. The BKCI was launched primarily to assist researchers identify useful and relevant research that was previously invisible to them, owing to the lack of significant book content in citation indexes such as the Web of Science. So far, the content of 33,000 books has been added to the desktops of the global research community, the majority in the arts, humanities, and social sciences fields. Initial analyses of the data from The BKCI have indicated that The BKCI, in its current version, should not be used for bibliometric or evaluative purposes. The most significant limitations to this potential application are the high share of publications without address information, the inflation of publication counts, the lack of cumulative citation counts from different hierarchical levels, and inconsistency in citation counts between the cited reference search and the book citation index. However, The BKCI is a first step toward creating a reliable and necessary citation data source for monographs - a very challenging issue, because, unlike journals and conference proceedings, books have specific requirements, and several problems emerge not only in the context of subject classification, but also in their role as cited publications and in citing publications.
  9. Sombatsompop, N.; Markpin, T.: Making an equality of ISI impact factors for different subject fields (2005) 0.02 
    0.022282867 = product of:
  0.08913147 = sum of:
    0.08913147 = weight(_text_:subject in 3467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08913147 = score(doc=3467,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.5301652 = fieldWeight in 3467, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3467)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The journal impact factors, published by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI; Philadelphia, PA), are widely known and are used to evaluate overall journal quality and the quality of the papers published therein. However, when making comparisons between subject fields, the work of individual scientists and their research institutions as reflected in their articles' ISI impact factors can become meaningless. This inequality will remain as long as ISI impact factors are employed as an instrument to assess the quality of international research. Here we propose a new mathematical index entitled Impact Factor PointAverage (IFPA) for assessment of the quality of individual research work in different subject fields. The index is established based an a normalization of differences in impact factors, rankings, and number of journal titles in different subject fields. The proposed index is simple and enables the ISI impact factors to be used with equality, especially when evaluating the quality of research work in different subject fields.
  10. Gabel, J.: Improving information retrieval of subjects through citation-analysis (2006) 0.02 
    0.02034138 = product of:
  0.08136552 = sum of:
    0.08136552 = weight(_text_:subject in 61) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08136552 = score(doc=61,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.48397237 = fieldWeight in 61, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=61)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Citation-chasing is proposed as a method of discovering additional terms to enhance subject-search retrieval by broadening and prioritizing the results. Subjects attached to records representing cited works are compared to subjects attached to records representing the original citing sources, and to the subjects yielded by chasing see-also references from the latter group of headings. Original citing sources were yielded via a subject-list search in a library catalog using the subject heading "Language and languages - Origin." A subject-search was employed to avoid subjectivity in choosing sources. References from the sources were searched in OCLC where applicable, and the subject headings were retrieved. The subjects were ranked first by number of citations from original sources, then by total citation-frequency. The results were tiered into 4 groups in a Bradford-like distribution. A similar rank and division was performed on the subjects representing the original citing sources, and those yielded by chasing see-also references. Both in terms of subject frequency and topic type, positive comparisons between citation chasing and see-also references show a confirmation of different methods of yielding alternative subjects. Exclusive results suggest potential mutual complementary value among these different methods.
  11. Shaw, W.M.: Subject and citation indexing : pt.2: the optimal, cluster-based retrieval performance of composite representations (1991) 0.02 
    0.018790562 = product of:
  0.07516225 = sum of:
    0.07516225 = weight(_text_:subject in 4842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07516225 = score(doc=4842,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.4470745 = fieldWeight in 4842, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4842)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Fortsetzung von pt.1: experimental retrieval results are presented as a function of the exhaustivity and similarity of the composite representations and reveal consistent patterns from which optimal performance levels can be identified. The optimal performance values provide an assessment of the absolute capacity of each composite representation to associate documents relevant to different queries in single-link hierarchies. The effectiveness of the exhaustive representation composed of references and citations is materially superior to the effectiveness of exhaustive composite representations that include subject descriptions
  12. Shaw, W.M.: Subject and citation indexing : pt.1: the clustering structure of composite representations in the cystic fibrosis document collection (1991) 0.02 
    0.017260233 = product of:
  0.06904093 = sum of:
    0.06904093 = weight(_text_:subject in 4841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06904093 = score(doc=4841,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.41066417 = fieldWeight in 4841, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4841)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The presence of clustering structure in the CF document collection (cystic fibrosis) is evaluated as a function of the exhaustivity of 5 composite representations. The composite representations are constructed from 2 subject descriptions, based on MeSH and subheadings, and 2 citation indexes, based on the complete set of references an and a comprehensive set of citations to each document. Experiment results reveal observable evidence of clustering structure diminishes as the exhaustivity of each representation is decreased. The representation composed of references and citations shows less evidence of clustering structure at the exhaustive level but more uniform evidence of clustering structure over a wide range of exhaustivity levels than composite representations that include subject descriptions. The structures imposed on the CF document collection by all composite representations satisfy the necessary condition for a meaningful clustering outcome
  13. Gabel, J.: Improving information retrieval of subjects through citation-analysis : a study (2006) 0.01 
    0.014383527 = product of:
  0.05753411 = sum of:
    0.05753411 = weight(_text_:subject in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05753411 = score(doc=225,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Citation-chasing is proposed as a method of discovering additional terms to enhance subjectsearch retrieval. Subjects attached to OCLC records for cited works are compared to those attached to original citing sources. Citing sources were produced via a subject-list search in a library catalog using the LCSH "Language and languages-Origin." A subject-search was employed to avoid subjectivity in choosing sources. References from the sources were searched in OCLC where applicable, and the subject headings were retrieved. The subjects were ranked by citation-frequency and tiered into 3 groups in a Bradford-like distribution. Highly cited subjects were produced that were not revealed through the original search. A difference in relative importance among the subjects was also revealed. Broad extra-linguistic topics like evolution are more prominent than specific linguistic topics like phonology. There are exceptions, which appear somewhat predictable by the amount of imbalance in citation-representation among the 2 sources. Citation leaders were also produced for authors and secondary-source titles.
  14. Lin, X.; White, H.D.; Buzydlowski, J.: Real-time author co-citation mapping for online searching (2003) 0.01 
    0.01409292 = product of:
  0.05637168 = sum of:
    0.05637168 = weight(_text_:subject in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05637168 = score(doc=1080,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Author searching is traditionally based on the matching of name strings. Special characteristics of authors as personal names and subject indicators are not considered. This makes it difficult to identify a set of related authors or to group authors by subjects in retrieval systems. In this paper, we describe the design and implementation of a prototype visualization system to enhance author searching. The system, called AuthorLink, is based on author co-citation analysis and visualization mapping algorithms such as Kohonen's feature maps and Pathfinder networks. AuthorLink produces interactive author maps in real time from a database of 1.26 million records supplied by the Institute for Scientific Information. The maps show subject groupings and more fine-grained intellectual connections among authors. Through the interactive interface the user can take advantage of such information to refine queries and retrieve documents through point-and-click manipulation of the authors' names.
  15. Leydesdorff, L.; Opthof, T.: Citation analysis with medical subject Headings (MeSH) using the Web of Knowledge : a new routine (2013) 0.01 
    0.01409292 = product of:
  0.05637168 = sum of:
    0.05637168 = weight(_text_:subject in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05637168 = score(doc=943,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Citation analysis of documents retrieved from the Medline database (at the Web of Knowledge) has been possible only on a case-by-case basis. A technique is presented here for citation analysis in batch mode using both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) at the Web of Knowledge and the Science Citation Index at the Web of Science (WoS). This freeware routine is applied to the case of "Brugada Syndrome," a specific disease and field of research (since 1992). The journals containing these publications, for example, are attributed to WoS categories other than "cardiac and cardiovascular systems", perhaps because of the possibility of genetic testing for this syndrome in the clinic. With this routine, all the instruments available for citation analysis can now be used on the basis of MeSH terms. Other options for crossing between Medline, WoS, and Scopus are also reviewed.
  16. Howard, D.L.: What the eye sees while predicitng a document's pertinence from its citation (1991) 0.01 
    0.013286933 = product of:
  0.053147733 = sum of:
    0.053147733 = weight(_text_:subject in 3675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053147733 = score(doc=3675,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 3675, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3675)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Predicting relevance of documents from citations is a common problem for information users. The study addresses the relevance prediction process and most specifically, what is viewed by the subject while using the citations. 2 kinds of protocols were collected while 11 subjects viewed 7 citations each. Eye fixations and eye movements between parts of citations were examined. Verbal reports from subjects during this process were used to explore the process of assessment
  17. Pao, M.L.: Term and citation retrieval : a field study (1993) 0.01 
    0.013286933 = product of:
  0.053147733 = sum of:
    0.053147733 = weight(_text_:subject in 3741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053147733 = score(doc=3741,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 3741, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3741)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  18. So, C.Y.K.: Citation ranking versus expert judgement in evaluating communication scholars : effects of research specialty size and individual prominence (1998) 0.01 
    0.013286933 = product of:
  0.053147733 = sum of:
    0.053147733 = weight(_text_:subject in 327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053147733 = score(doc=327,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 327, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=327)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Numerous attempts have been made to validate the use of citations as an evaluation method by comparing it with peer review. Unlike past studies using journals, research articles or universities as the subject matter, the present study extends the comparison to the ranking of individual scholars. Results show that citation ranking and expert judgement of communication scholars are highly correlated. The citation methods and the expert judgement method are found to work better in smaller research areas and yield more valid evaluation results for more prominent scholars
  19. Meng, L.: ¬The creation of [the] Chinese Science Citation Database : status quo and future development (1997) 0.01 
    0.013286933 = product of:
  0.053147733 = sum of:
    0.053147733 = weight(_text_:subject in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053147733 = score(doc=954,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 954, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=954)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) is a significant document database on mainland China, which has been built up by the Documentation and Information Centre of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Briefly introduces the background to CSCD, and discusses in detail its development and application, source journals and citation data, data processing methods, subject scope, compilation regulations, stylistic rules and layout, and usage directions for both the printed and CD-ROM editions of CSCD which have been published from the data
  20. Sen, B.K.; Pandalai, T.A.; Karanjai, A.: Ranking of scientists - a new approach (1998) 0.01 
    0.013286933 = product of:
  0.053147733 = sum of:
    0.053147733 = weight(_text_:subject in 5113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053147733 = score(doc=5113,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 5113, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5113)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    A formula for the ranking of scientists based on diachronous citation counts is proposed. The paper generalises the fact that the citation generation potential (CGP) is not the same for all papers, it differs from paper to paper, and also to a certain extent depends on the subject domain of the papers. The method of ranking proposed in no way replaces peer review. It merely acts as an aid for peers to help them arrive at a better judgement.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 59
  • d 5
  • chi 2
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 66
  • el 3
  • More… Less…

Themes