Search (267 results, page 1 of 14)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013) 0.07 
    0.07465742 = product of:
  0.29862967 = sum of:
    0.29862967 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29862967 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39851433 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
  2. Bensman, S.J.; Leydesdorff, L.: Definition and identification of journals as bibliographic and subject entities : librarianship versus ISI Journal Citation Reports methods and their effect on citation measures (2009) 0.07 
    0.06754546 = product of:
  0.13509092 = sum of:
    0.11274336 = weight(_text_:subject in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11274336 = score(doc=2840,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.67061174 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
    0.02234756 = product of:
      0.04469512 = sum of:
        0.04469512 = weight(_text_:classification in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04469512 = score(doc=2840,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 2840, 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=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper explores the ISI Journal Citation Reports (JCR) bibliographic and subject structures through Library of Congress (LC) and American research libraries cataloging and classification methodology. The 2006 Science Citation Index JCR Behavioral Sciences subject category journals are used as an example. From the library perspective, the main fault of the JCR bibliographic structure is that the JCR mistakenly identifies journal title segments as journal bibliographic entities, seriously affecting journal rankings by total cites and the impact factor. In respect to JCR subject structure, the title segment, which constitutes the JCR bibliographic basis, is posited as the best bibliographic entity for the citation measurement of journal subject relationships. Through factor analysis and other methods, the JCR subject categorization of journals is tested against their LC subject headings and classification. The finding is that JCR and library journal subject analyses corroborate, clarify, and correct each other.
  3. Crespo, J.A.; Herranz, N.; Li, Y.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level (2014) 0.06 
    0.05917308 = product of:
  0.11834616 = sum of:
    0.046976402 = weight(_text_:subject in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046976402 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.07136976 = sum of:
      0.02633685 = weight(_text_:classification in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02633685 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = queryNorm
          0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
      0.045032907 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045032907 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.
  4. Mommoh, O.M.: Subject analysis of post-graduate theses in library, archival and information science at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (1995/96) 0.06 
    0.058764517 = product of:
  0.117529035 = sum of:
    0.092054576 = weight(_text_:subject in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092054576 = score(doc=673,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.5475522 = fieldWeight in 673, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=673)
    0.02547446 = product of:
      0.05094892 = sum of:
        0.05094892 = weight(_text_:22 in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05094892 = score(doc=673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 673, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=673)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a bibliometric study of 111 theses accepted by the Department of Library and Information Science, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria, between 1977 and 1992. The analysis was based on year, type and degree awarded, subject, type of library and geographical area. Concludes that the highest number of submissions was 1991, when 108 MLS theses (97,29%) and 3 PhD theses (2,71%) were accepted. Libraries and readers was the most concetrated subject while the academic library was the most discussed type of library
    Source
    Library focus. 13/14(1995/96), S.22-25
  5. Gomez, I.: Coping with the problem of subject classification diversity (1996) 0.06 
    0.056239747 = product of:
  0.11247949 = sum of:
    0.08054776 = weight(_text_:subject in 5074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08054776 = score(doc=5074,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.4791082 = fieldWeight in 5074, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5074)
    0.031931736 = product of:
      0.06386347 = sum of:
        0.06386347 = weight(_text_:classification in 5074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06386347 = score(doc=5074,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.42661208 = fieldWeight in 5074, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5074)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The delimination of a research field in bibliometric studies presents the problem of the diversity of subject classifications used in the sources of input and output data. Classification of documents according the thematic codes or keywords is the most accurate method, mainly used is specialized bibliographic or patent databases. Classification of journals in disciplines presents lower specifity, and some shortcomings as the change over time of both journals and disciplines and the increasing interdisciplinarity of research. Standardization of subject classifications emerges as an important point in bibliometric studies in order to allow international comparisons, although flexibility is needed to meet the needs of local studies
  6. Li, T.-C.: Reference sources in periodicals : research note (1995) 0.05 
    0.050318353 = product of:
  0.100636706 = sum of:
    0.07516225 = weight(_text_:subject in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07516225 = score(doc=5092,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.4470745 = fieldWeight in 5092, 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=5092)
    0.02547446 = product of:
      0.05094892 = sum of:
        0.05094892 = weight(_text_:22 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05094892 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Presents a list of 53 periodicals in 22 subject fields which regularly provide bibliographies of theses, research in progress and patents in their particular subject field. The fields of business, economics, history and literature have most periodical listings of dissertations and theses. Also lists 63 periodicals in 25 sub-disciplines which provide rankings or ratings. Rankings and ratings information predominates in the fields of business, sports and games, finance and banking, and library and information science
  7. Chung, Y.-K.: Bradford distribution and core authors in classification systems literature (1994) 0.05 
    0.04764335 = product of:
  0.0952867 = sum of:
    0.053147733 = weight(_text_:subject in 5066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053147733 = score(doc=5066,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 5066, 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=5066)
    0.04213896 = product of:
      0.08427792 = sum of:
        0.08427792 = weight(_text_:classification in 5066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08427792 = score(doc=5066,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 5066, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5066)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Bradford's law of scatter was applied to the analysis of the authors of source documents on the subject of classification schemes, published in core periodicals over the period 1981-1990. Results indicated that: core authors of the international classification system literature are Library of Congress, M. Dewey, S. Ranganathan, J. Comaroni, A. Neelameghan, L. Chan and K. Markey; the highly cited authors are linked either to the developers of the classification schemes or to a research centre, or else they authored the most frequently cited books; and the data conforms to Bradford's Law of Scatter
  8. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.05 
    0.04569863 = product of:
  0.09139726 = sum of:
    0.033217333 = weight(_text_:subject in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033217333 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
    0.05817993 = sum of:
      0.02633685 = weight(_text_:classification in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02633685 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = queryNorm
          0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
      0.031843077 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031843077 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.
  9. Gómez-Núñez, A.J.; Vargas-Quesada, B.; Moya-Anegón, F. de: Updating the SCImago journal and country rank classification : a new approach using Ward's clustering and alternative combination of citation measures (2016) 0.04 
    0.044895016 = product of:
  0.08979003 = sum of:
    0.05753411 = weight(_text_:subject in 2499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05753411 = score(doc=2499,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 2499, 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=2499)
    0.03225592 = product of:
      0.06451184 = sum of:
        0.06451184 = weight(_text_:classification in 2499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06451184 = score(doc=2499,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 2499, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2499)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This study introduces a new proposal to refine the classification of the SCImago Journal and Country Rank (SJR) platform by using clustering techniques and an alternative combination of citation measures from an initial 18,891 SJR journal network. Thus, a journal-journal matrix including simultaneously fractionalized values of direct citation, cocitation, and coupling was symmetrized by cosine similarity and later transformed into distances before performing clustering. The results provided a new cluster-based subject structure comprising 290 clusters that emerge by executing Ward's clustering in two phases and using a mixed labeling procedure based on tf-idf scores of the original SJR category tags and significant words extracted from journal titles. In total, 13,716 SJR journals were classified using this new cluster-based scheme. Although more than 5,000 journals were omitted in the classification process, the method produced a consistent classification with a balanced structure of coherent and well-defined clusters, a moderated multiassignment of journals, and a softer concentration of journals over clusters than in the original SJR categories. New subject disciplines such as "nanoscience and nanotechnology" or "social work" were also detected, providing evidence of good performance of our approach in refining the journal classification and updating the subject classification structure.
  10. Yan, E.: Finding knowledge paths among scientific disciplines (2014) 0.04 
    0.040025283 = product of:
  0.080050565 = sum of:
    0.05753411 = weight(_text_:subject in 1534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05753411 = score(doc=1534,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 1534, 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=1534)
    0.022516454 = product of:
      0.045032907 = sum of:
        0.045032907 = weight(_text_:22 in 1534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045032907 = score(doc=1534,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1534, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1534)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper uncovers patterns of knowledge dissemination among scientific disciplines. Although the transfer of knowledge is largely unobservable, citations from one discipline to another have been proven to be an effective proxy to study disciplinary knowledge flow. This study constructs a knowledge-flow network in which a node represents a Journal Citation Reports subject category and a link denotes the citations from one subject category to another. Using the concept of shortest path, several quantitative measurements are proposed and applied to a knowledge-flow network. Based on an examination of subject categories in Journal Citation Reports, this study indicates that social science domains tend to be more self-contained, so it is more difficult for knowledge from other domains to flow into them; at the same time, knowledge from science domains, such as biomedicine-, chemistry-, and physics-related domains, can access and be accessed by other domains more easily. This study also shows that social science domains are more disunified than science domains, because three fifths of the knowledge paths from one social science domain to another require at least one science domain to serve as an intermediate. This work contributes to discussions on disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity by providing empirical analysis.
    Date
    26.10.2014 20:22:22
  11. Zhang, L.; Rousseau, R.; Glänzel, W.: Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals : taking similarity between subject fields into account (2016) 0.04 
    0.039801545 = product of:
  0.07960309 = sum of:
    0.06643467 = weight(_text_:subject in 2902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06643467 = score(doc=2902,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 2902, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2902)
    0.013168425 = product of:
      0.02633685 = sum of:
        0.02633685 = weight(_text_:classification in 2902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02633685 = score(doc=2902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2902, 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=2902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The objective of this article is to further the study of journal interdisciplinarity, or, more generally, knowledge integration at the level of individual articles. Interdisciplinarity is operationalized by the diversity of subject fields assigned to cited items in the article's reference list. Subject fields and subfields were obtained from the Leuven-Budapest (ECOOM) subject-classification scheme, while disciplinary diversity was measured taking variety, balance, and disparity into account. As diversity measure we use a Hill-type true diversity in the sense of Jost and Leinster-Cobbold. The analysis is conducted in 3 steps. In the first part, the properties of this measure are discussed, and, on the basis of these properties it is shown that the measure has the potential to serve as an indicator of interdisciplinarity. In the second part the applicability of this indicator is shown using selected journals from several research fields ranging from mathematics to social sciences. Finally, the often-heard argument, namely, that interdisciplinary research exhibits larger visibility and impact, is studied on the basis of these selected journals. Yet, as only 7 journals, representing a total of 15,757 articles, are studied, albeit chosen to cover a large range of interdisciplinarity, further research is still needed.
  12. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data (1996) 0.04 
    0.037738763 = product of:
  0.075477526 = sum of:
    0.05637168 = weight(_text_:subject in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05637168 = score(doc=7659,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
    0.019105844 = product of:
      0.03821169 = sum of:
        0.03821169 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03821169 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    It is possible, using ISI's Journal Citation Report (JCR), to calculate average impact factors (AIF) for LCR's subject categories but it can be more useful to know the global Impact Factor (GIF) of a subject category and compare the 2 values. Reports results of a study to compare the relationships between AIFs and GIFs of subjects, based on the particular case of the average impact factor of a subfield versus the impact factor of this subfield as a whole, the difference being studied between an average of quotients, denoted as AQ, and a global average, obtained as a quotient of averages, and denoted as GQ. In the case of impact factors, AQ becomes the average impact factor of a field, and GQ becomes its global impact factor. Discusses a number of applications of this technique in the context of informetrics and scientometrics
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170
  13. Ajiferuke, I.; Lu, K.; Wolfram, D.: ¬A comparison of citer and citation-based measure outcomes for multiple disciplines (2010) 0.04 
    0.037738763 = product of:
  0.075477526 = sum of:
    0.05637168 = weight(_text_:subject in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05637168 = score(doc=4000,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
    0.019105844 = product of:
      0.03821169 = sum of:
        0.03821169 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03821169 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Author research impact was examined based on citer analysis (the number of citers as opposed to the number of citations) for 90 highly cited authors grouped into three broad subject areas. Citer-based outcome measures were also compared with more traditional citation-based measures for levels of association. The authors found that there are significant differences in citer-based outcomes among the three broad subject areas examined and that there is a high degree of correlation between citer and citation-based measures for all measures compared, except for two outcomes calculated for the social sciences. Citer-based measures do produce slightly different rankings of authors based on citer counts when compared to more traditional citation counts. Examples are provided. Citation measures may not adequately address the influence, or reach, of an author because citations usually do not address the origin of the citation beyond self-citations.
    Date
    28. 9.2010 12:54:22
  14. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: ¬The operationalization of "fields" as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics : the cases of "library and information science" and "science & technology studies" (2016) 0.04 
    0.036086895 = product of:
  0.07217379 = sum of:
    0.05637168 = weight(_text_:subject in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05637168 = score(doc=2779,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 2779, 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=2779)
    0.015802111 = product of:
      0.031604223 = sum of:
        0.031604223 = weight(_text_:classification in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031604223 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
  15. Haiqi, Z.: ¬The literature of Qigong : publication patterns and subject headings (1997) 0.03 
    0.03439721 = product of:
  0.06879442 = sum of:
    0.046504267 = weight(_text_:subject in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046504267 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
    0.022290153 = product of:
      0.044580307 = sum of:
        0.044580307 = weight(_text_:22 in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044580307 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.3, S.38-44
  16. Falkingham, L.T.; Reeves, R.: Context analysis : a technique for analysing research in a field, applied to literature on the management of R&D at the section level (1998) 0.03 
    0.03439721 = product of:
  0.06879442 = sum of:
    0.046504267 = weight(_text_:subject in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046504267 = score(doc=3689,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 3689, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3689)
    0.022290153 = product of:
      0.044580307 = sum of:
        0.044580307 = weight(_text_:22 in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044580307 = score(doc=3689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Context analysis is a new method for appraising a body of publications. the process consists of creating a database of attributes assigned to each paper by the reviewer and then looking for interesting relationships in the data. Assigning the attributes requires an understanding of the subject matter of the papers. Presents findings about one particular research field, Management of R&D at the Section Level. The findings support the view that this body of academic publications does not meet the needs of practitioner R&D managers. Discusses practical aspects of how to apply the method in other fields
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:18:46
  17. Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van: ¬A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science : keyword maps in Google scholar citations (2012) 0.03 
    0.034028858 = product of:
  0.068057716 = sum of:
    0.033217333 = weight(_text_:subject in 511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033217333 = score(doc=511,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 511, 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=511)
    0.03484038 = product of:
      0.06968076 = sum of:
        0.06968076 = weight(_text_:classification in 511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06968076 = score(doc=511,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.46547192 = fieldWeight in 511, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=511)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Classifying journals or publications into research areas is an essential element of many bibliometric analyses. Classification usually takes place at the level of journals, where the Web of Science subject categories are the most popular classification system. However, journal-level classification systems have two important limitations: They offer only a limited amount of detail, and they have difficulties with multidisciplinary journals. To avoid these limitations, we introduce a new methodology for constructing classification systems at the level of individual publications. In the proposed methodology, publications are clustered into research areas based on citation relations. The methodology is able to deal with very large numbers of publications. We present an application in which a classification system is produced that includes almost 10 million publications. Based on an extensive analysis of this classification system, we discuss the strengths and the limitations of the proposed methodology. Important strengths are the transparency and relative simplicity of the methodology and its fairly modest computing and memory requirements. The main limitation of the methodology is its exclusive reliance on direct citation relations between publications. The accuracy of the methodology can probably be increased by also taking into account other types of relations-for instance, based on bibliographic coupling.
  18. Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010) 0.03 
    0.03144897 = product of:
  0.06289794 = sum of:
    0.046976402 = weight(_text_:subject in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046976402 = score(doc=4147,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
    0.015921539 = product of:
      0.031843077 = sum of:
        0.031843077 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031843077 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.
    Date
    8. 1.2011 19:22:13
  19. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.03 
    0.03144897 = product of:
  0.06289794 = sum of:
    0.046976402 = weight(_text_:subject in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046976402 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.015921539 = product of:
      0.031843077 = sum of:
        0.031843077 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031843077 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.
  20. 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.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 254
  • d 11
  • chi 1
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 263
  • m 4
  • el 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications